The US airstrikes on a Syrian air force base – the first such attack by America against the regime of Bashar al-Assad – represent an extraordinary turnaround from the earlier rhetoric used by Donald Trump about how he would conduct his country’s foreign policy.

As a presidential candidate, Mr Trump had warned against getting involved in Syria, saying the priority should be the defeat of Isis, and pointing out that any US action against the Assad regime risked conflict with Russia and Iran. During the campaign, Mr Trump had also sharply criticised America’s traditional interventionist foreign policy, and his inauguration speech – which was based on the theme of ‘America first’ – used the most isolationist language I have ever heard from a newly sworn-in US President.

So what has changed? Mr Trump is said to have been moved by a horrendous chemical wea­pons attack on the rebel enclave at Idlib that killed 89 people, including women, children and babies, and poisoned hundreds more. Two days after the chemical attack – which all the evidence points to the Syrian government being responsible for – President Trump ordered airstrikes from US Navy ships against the Syrian base that carried out the chemical attack.

But what exactly does Mr Trump hope to achieve and what are the consequences of this latest military strike? Could it be that Mr Trump wanted to show America and the world that he was a ‘tougher’ leader than Presi­dent Barack Obama – who ignored his own red line in 2013 by not reacting militarily to earlier chemical attacks carried out by the Assad regime? It is also possible that the President want­ed to shift attention away from the domestic agenda where he has achieved little and where his poll ratings remain low.

Has Mr Trump now decided that regime change in Syria is as important as the fight against Isis? What about Russia? Is Mr Trump willing to see a further deterioration in relations with Moscow, after all his promises to work with Vladimir Putin in the interest of international stability and peace?

And what about Iran? Is a further deterioration in relations with Teheran in America’s interest? The two countries, are, after all, on the same side in Iraq, and both want to see Isis defeated there. And we mustn’t forget that increased hostility by the US towards Teheran will only benefit the hardline candidates in Iran’s presidential elections next month, which is in nobody’s interest.

There is no doubt that President Trump sent a strong signal to both the Assad regime and the wider world that the use of chemical weapons, which is a war crime banned under international law, will not be tolerated. On the whole, the strikes were cautiously welcomed by most of America’s allies, both in the region and in Europe, as well as domestically.

Also, it must be pointed out that the US attack was a carefully measured and limited strike against an air force base, which is said to have destroyed 20 per cent of Syria’s airpower.

So far, so good, but airstrikes alone will not solve the crisis in Syria, and they do run the risk of widening the conflict if not accompanied by a long-term politi­cal and diplomatic strategy aimed at ending this terrible tragedy.

Hopefully, the US action will deter the further use of chemical weapons by President Assad. But what if they don’t? Will the US strike again, even though Russia and Iran have said that from now on they will “respond with force” if their own “red lines” are crossed in Syria?

And what if Syrian government forces, and Russia, relentlessly continue to bomb civilians in rebel-held towns, not with chemi­cal weapons, but with conventional weapons and barrel bombs – which are devastating when detonated and are illegal under international conventions? Will Ameri­ca now sit back and watch?

What is needed now is more clarity and a sense of direction by Mr Trump on Syria – and his whole foreign policy agenda

The challenge for Washington is to translate this latest intervention into a coherent policy on Syria. A few days before the air­strikes, Nikki Haley, Mr Trump’s UN Ambassador, made it clear that the US was not going to focus on getting rid of Mr Assad, while Secretary of State Rex Tillerson said that the Syrian President’s future “will be decided by the Syrian people”. So the US airstrikes, even if they were the right thing to do in the circumstances, did send mixed signals.

What is needed now is more clarity and a sense of direction by Mr Trump on Syria (and his whole foreign policy agenda).  So far, neither the President, nor his Secretary of State, have given a single major foreign policy speech, let alone a speech on Syria. This situation cannot go on and the world needs to know where America stands on major foreign policy issues, especially now that Mr Trump has given a hint that he is indeed an interventionist.

After the airstrikes, Defence Secretary James Mattis told the media:  “Our military policy in Syria has not changed. Our prio­rity remains the defeat of Isis.” A day after that, President Trump told The New York Post: “We’re not going into Syria. Our policy is the same, it hasn’t changed. We’re not going into Syria.”

But US policy has changed, which is why a clearer strategy is needed. And it needs to be stressed that the US is already in Syria, with about 1,000 troops on the ground in the north of the country, training Arab and Kurdish forces fighting Isis. There are also US special forces and marines close to the Isis stronghold of Raqqa, supporting rebels in their attempt to liberate the jihadists’ de facto capital.

The key to a long-term solution in Syria is, of course, Russia, which has so far backed its only real ally in the Arab world to the hilt. After the US attack, Moscow vowed to beef up Syria’s air defences and said it was suspending an agreement with the US aimed at preventing mid-air collisions over Syria, which signalled a very dangerous escalation in the conflict. Thankfully, this accord was renewed during last week’s visit to Russia by Mr Tillerson, the only positive thing that came out of the Secretary of State’s meeting with his counterpart Sergei Lavrov and Mr Putin, where both sides acknowledged that relations between the two countries were at an all-time low.

Hypothetically, Mr Trump’s airstrikes have strengthened the US’s diplomatic position in Syria and put Moscow on the defensive. Also, the chemical attack is without doubt very damaging for Russia and has dented its credibility in the region.

There are two possible scenarios here: Either Russia knew that the attack was going to take place and condoned it – which means that its co-sponsorship with the US of the Syrian chemi­cal weapons deal in 2013 was a sham. Or Assad deceived Russia by keeping some of his chemical weapons to use when he chooses to, which means Moscow does­n’t have that much leverage over the Damascus regime.

Of course, we can’t expect Russia, which is a proud country, to change its position on Syria or to abandon its ally Assad overnight. In fact, last Wednesday, Moscow again vetoed a UN Security Council resolution on Syria – for the eighth time. The resolution would have condemned the che­mi­cal attack in Syria and de­man­ded that Damascus cooperate with investigators.

Significantly, however, China abstained in the vote, which suggests that Russia is increasingly isolated in this conflict.

There is no doubt that the US and Russia should work together over Syria; Mr Trump needs to lay out a clear strategy and Mr Putin needs to do some rethinking. A political solution involving all the regional players is the only answer, and while Russia should not be cornered over Syria – the G7 chose last week not to impose additional sanctions on Moscow for this reason – it needs to be persuaded that its unconditional support for Assad is not in its interest.

So, has Mr Trump really changed his foreign policy outlook? He has certainly been sending some messages. Last week he said Nato was no longer obsolete, and he dropped his pledge to declare China a currency manipulator, while praising Chinese President President Xi Jinping as a “gentleman” who “wants to do the right thing” over North Korea.

Furthermore, Trump has sent a US Navy strike group towards the western Pacific Ocean near the Korean peninsula amid concerns over North Korea’s wea­pons programme. North Korea, of course, is a huge challenge for Trump, and I hope that he will not act irrationally as he deals with a potentially very explosive situation.

Significantly, Trump ended his brief address to the American people after the US airstrikes calling on God to bless not only America, but also the “entire world”. Has an unlikely globalist been born?