Trump’s first move fine, but what’s next?

The message sent by President Trump was as clear and correct as possible: The United States will not sit idly by and watch a dictator use chemical weapons on his citizens.

The world watched in horror this week as forces loyal to Syrian President Bashar al-Assad unleashed a deadly poison gas that killed 86 people, including 27 children.

Our hearts were broken by the images of lifeless bodies in the streets, children gasping for air and family members holding one another as they died. It is incomprehensible that any leader — no matter their desperation to remain in power — could do such a thing.

Like his predecessor, President Trump has opposed U.S. military involvement in Syria, even as Assad slaughtered his own people during the country’s six-year civil war. At one point during the campaign, Trump suggested the problem should be solved by others in the region, including the Russians.

But the horrific images of human suffering caused the president to change his mind about military action there. And he was right. Assad had to be shown the world won’t tolerate a leader who gasses people to death.

But now what?

After his first use of our nation’s military might, what happens next will be Trump’s true test of leadership on the world stage.

For make no mistake, Syria and Assad are now the president’s problem. No longer can he blame former President Obama for the quagmire there. The buck now stops with him.

And like health care, Trump now knows the situation in the region is complex, with domino effects regarding Russia, Iran, ISIS and refugees. Today our posture is wait-and-see. Will Thursday’s air strikes — narrowly targeted on the airfield where the chemical weapons attacks emanated — be a one and done, as initially suggested? Or are we looking at more military action ahead?

And was this strike solely about Assad using poison gas to kill his people? If so, how do we justify his killing his people with bullets and bombs, instead?

Though wary of foreshadowing things to come, Trump should present his vision to Congress and the American people. No one wants to get involved in another situation like Afghanistan and Iraq. No one wants another war, period. It’s why his initial response to “let them figure it out” resonated with so many.

But because Assad crossed the line, we’ve now crossed a line.

While Russia and Syria, among others, denounced Trump’s actions, it was good to see so much support in this country, including from both sides the aisle. It’s the first time we’ve seen Washington agree on anything since the November election.

Florida Republican Sen. Marco Rubio said Friday that U.S. airstrikes achieved a “clear military objective by significantly degrading one of the Assad regime’s six air bases.”

Democratic Sen. Bill Nelson agreed, saying, “I support the administration’s strike on the air base that launched the chemical attack. I hope this teaches President Assad not to use chemical weapons again.”

Democratic South Florida Reps. Lois Frankel and Ted Deutch also voiced support, as did Republican Reps. Ilena RosLehtinen and Mario Diaz-Balart.

So far from Syria and its Russian allies, we’re hearing fighting words.

Syria says the air strikes were an “act of aggression” and that “America is now a partner of ISIS.”

Russian Prime Minister Dmitry Medvedev said on Facebook that the strike left the U.S. “on the verge of a military clash with Russia.” Dmitry Peskov, spokesman for Russian president Vladimir Putin, also said, “With this step Washington has struck a significant blow to Russian-American relations, which were already in a sorry state.”

And a spokesman for the Iranian Foreign Ministry said his government condemns the missile strikes and believes they will lead to “the strengthening of failing terrorists and complicate the situation in the region.”

Rep. Frederica Wilson of Miami says, rightly so, that Trump “will need to follow up the airstrikes with a cohesive plan of action that clearly defines strategies and goals for both Syria and the region.”

Is the U.S. pushing to lead a global movement aimed at removing Assad from power? Secretary of State Rex Tillerson surprised many Thursday by reversing course and saying there was “no role” for Assad to continue to govern the people of Syria.

So many questions remain. What now happens with the refugee crisis? Will Syria become a more dangerous haven for extremist groups if the Assad regime collapses? Has Israel been placed in more danger? And what happens if Assad retaliates for the air strikes?

Nikki Haley, the U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, warned Friday that the United States is prepared to do more.

We can only hope more isn’t needed.