PROFESSOR ANTHONY F LANG JR ST ANDREWS UNIVERSITY

US missile strikes against the Syrian airbase surprised many, including the American State Department.

After condemning the previous administration for meddling in conflicts where the US had no direct national interest, President Trump has changed his tune and now the most important questions are why and what happens next?

Testimony by Nikky Haley, US ambassador to the UN, to the UN Security Council gives the first hint.

Haley dramatically brought forth photos of children killed by the use of chemical weapons.

It is unclear what the relationship is between Haley and Trump, but certainly the president was influenced by the photos and whatever other evidence provided to him.

This is not the first time that emotive images of children dying led to an intervention – President George HW Bush ordered the US military to intervene in Somalia in 1992 after seeing such pictures.

President Trump is prone to quick decision-making – moreover, as can be seen in his tweets and statements, anger plays an important role in motivating him to act.

But we should not explain this decision purely on the basis of Mr Trump’s personality.

American interventions have over time demonstrated a strong punitive ethos.

US leaders have long sought to use force to punish bad guys.

US culture provides one explanation for this tendency, which encourages a binary vision of the world in which Americans ensure a righteous outcome.

However, single strikes never produce coherent outcomes. Taking out some of its air force and destroying some of its chemical munitions will slow down attacks for a short time, but it will not solve the problem.

It will undoubtedly make things worse as the Russians gear up to defend Assad and as Israel is possibly also pulled in.