President Trump ordered the Navy to fire 59 Tomahawk missiles, which cost more than $1.4 million each, at the Syrian airbase from which aircraft attacked Idlib creating a sarin gas catastrophe that shocked the world April 4. Many, including the president, claim Syrian President Bashar al-Assad ordered the chemical attack in violation of international law. Their only problem is they have no evidence.

The group claiming Assad used chemical weapons on his people earlier this week, Human Rights Observatory in Syria, is not in Syria. It is based in London and has no observers or scientists collecting data on the ground.

Rush to Judgment?

The United Nations Security Council High Representative for Disarmament Affairs Kim Won-soo said April 5 the UN cannot confirm the attack let alone who committed the incident. The Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW) is in the process of analyzing data to verify if chemical weapons were used.

Most suspect Sarin was used. Doctors in Turkey said preliminary results showed patients were exposed to the chemical material. Many of the victims were taken to Turkey. The question is who delivered it? The OPCW supervised the destruction of all Syrian chemical weapons by Syria and Russia in 2014.

The Truth?

Boris Dolgov, a senior researcher at the Center for Arab and Islamic Studies at the Institute of Oriental Studies at the Russian Academy of Sciences, said the accusations are part of a new smear campaign to discredit the Syrian leadership.

Dolgov added the United States joined this campaign without bothering to understand what is going on. The researcher floated the possibility the chemicals were imported through Turkey and headed to Iraq. The rebels use chemical weapons, according to Russian experts.

Washington would do well to consider Iraq post-Saddam Hussein and Libya-post Muammar Gaddafi before pushing regime change.

The devil you don't know is often much worse than the devil you know in the Middle East. Neither China nor Russia are fond of the idea of forcing sitting leaders out. Given what the U.S. has experienced in Egypt, Iraq, and Libya in recent years, Assad might abide by the best alternative.

Trump has proven all too effective at pointing the media's attention over there when the news is over here.

This could be another example. After all why would the U.S. president want attention in a week when he renewed relations with an Egyptian dictator, attempted to strong-arm Republicans into voting for his bad, oh so bad healthcare bill and the Senate changed its rules too narrowly approve Trump's Supreme Court selection?