On the 4th of April, reports began to arrive of a suspected major chemical weapons attack in Syria. It was reported from observers, including the Syrian Observatory for Human Rights, pro-opposition group Edlib Media Center, and many mainstream media platforms across the world. Military planes were reported to have carried out strikes on the town of Khan Sheikhoun, in northwestern Syria – a rebel-held region. By now, the whole world has seen the horrific and disturbing images and videos circulating online of children lying on the street unable to move, pupils dilated and choking. Other reported symptoms included fainting, vomiting and foaming at the mouth – all consistent with a chemical weapons attack. Opposition observers Edlib Media Center and Local Coordination Committees suggest the nerve agent Sarin was used. It was later reported jets then targeted medical facilities that were treating the wounded and were solely used as the main hospital in an area targeted a few days earlier in another airstrike. The current official death toll stands at around 80 – over 20 of which were children, and several others injured. Some sources, such as the Union of Medical Care and Relief Organizations suggest that the death toll is closer to 100 and anticipate this number could still rise. This is one of the deadliest chemical attacks in the Syrian civil war and is a moment that will be marked pivotal in subsequent actions taken by the Western powers.

The international response to the attack has been critical of Syria and Russia, in particular from the US. On April 6^th, the day preceding Trump’s direct response for launching a missile attack on a Syrian base, the president condemned the Assad regime for the attack, stating it was an “affront to humanity”. The Syrian military has yet again denied any use of chemical weapons on its civilians in both the present and past attacks. Russia has also responded, making a claim that Syrian warplanes struck a rebel-held stockpile of chemical weapons, which is the cause of the civilian deaths and injuries. Hamish de Bretton-Gordon, a former commanding officer of the British Armed Forces Joint Chemical Biological Radiological Nuclear (CBRN) Regiment dismissed the Russian explanation in a statement to the BBC in which he states, “It’s very clear it is a Sarin attack” and describes the Russian view as “completely unsustainable and untrue.”

Sadly, this is not the first time chemicals have been used as weapons against civilians in Syria. The most notable attack, in August 2013, also involved the use of Sarin in rockets, which struck the town of Ghouta in Damascus and killed hundreds of civilians. The 2013 attack provoked condemnation from the Western powers. This first chemical attack in Syria had the potential to be a significant turning point in the international response to the conflict, as President Obama had previously established in 2012 in a statement to reporters that the use of chemicals would be a “red line” for his “calculus” on Syria. However, when the chemical attack did take place, Obama retreated and did not pursue direct military action in Syria. Critics now argue that this week’s atrocity could have been avoided and condemns the inaction of Obama and the international community in 2013. The only action taken after the 2013 attack was the formation of a deal between the US, Russia and the Assad regime to destroy its chemical arsenal to prevent another chemical attack from ever taking place against Syrian civilians. This week’s attack alongside the frequent use of chemicals – typically chlorine gas – in Syria by both the Assad regime and Islamic State militants is testament to the failure of this deal.

This week’s atrocity raises the serious question of how the international community should best respond to such a horrendous violation of international law, and how to safely limit the further suffering of the Syrian people. In the two days after the attack, critical commentators condemned the inaction of Western powers against Assad since the beginning of the civil war six years ago – arguing that if there had been intervention earlier, such an atrocity would not have occurred on April 4th. On April 6^th, the Telegraph reported protests staged by children in the town of Khan Sheikhoun on the topic the international inaction to the situation in Syria. The children stood with duct tape over their mouths in opposition to the international community’s silence and held the flags of major world powers such as the UK, the US, France and China. These protestations ring true in the international system, with the UN Security Council’s meeting on April 6th paralyzed by disagreements and opposing resolutions between the UK, France, US and Assad’s allies Russia and China – despite all parties’ desire for an investigation into the attack. In addition, the UN Security Council meeting in February, imposing sanctions on the use of chemical weapons was yet again vetoed by Russia and China. It is easy to see how the West’s expressions of condemnation, emergency meetings and strongly-worded declarations ring hollow for those suffering in Syria right now, or worse – set a precedent of impunity for Assad, where the use of chemical weapons against his own citizens can go unchallenged and unpunished by the international system.

However, on April 7th, President Trump acted. The US launched 59 missiles on a Syrian airbase in direct response to the chemical attack on Tuesday. This marks the first direct military intervention by the US in Syria. Trump’s action has shocked the international community and particularly angered Russia, who has described the US attack as an “act of aggression against a sovereign country violating the norms of international law” and made comparisons to the 2003 invasion of Iraq by the US and its allies. The action by the US has provoked criticism – especially since the US has a history of questionable intervention in the Middle East that has often caused more harm than good. Trump’s response seems to not only be guided by emotion, but is also unclear in whether it is justified in America’s “vital national security interest” or is a form of moral interventionism. It is thus far unclear if this action was taken to simply send Assad a message or marks the beginning of formal US intervention in Syria. Dropping further bombs is not a constructive response – Syria, in particular, is testament to the fact that bombs are indiscriminate and kill innocent civilians just as much as those who are perceived to be “guilty.”

Now the international community faces an incredibly difficult challenge. There needs to be a system that balances the right level of action, which makes it clear that this kind of violation of international law is not accepted and cannot happen again. It needs to be ensured that this chemical attack does not act as a dangerous precedent for Assad and other brutal regimes around the world of what they can and cannot get away with. It is the international community’s responsibility to protect and help victims of war. This cannot be done through simple verbal expressions of grievance and condemnation from the Western powers. However, neither can it be achieved through further bombings, such as Trump has pursued.