As the forces of Syrian President Bashar Assad prepare for a final military offensive against Idlib, one of the last remaining rebel-dominated provinces in the war-torn country, Trump administration officials are concerned about the possibility of more chemical weapons attacks. The United States, France, and the U.K. issued a joint statement pledging that any additional use of chemical agents by the Assad regime would be met with an appropriate response. National security adviser John Bolton delivered a similar message to his Russian counterpart during his visit to Moscow last week. According to Bloomberg News, Bolton told the Russians an Assad regime chemical attack would be met with far greater force than Washington’s previous retaliatory strikes in April 2017 and April 2018.

Bolton’s comments can best be summarized as an ultimatum, but the administration shouldn’t make national security policy by putting U.S. credibility on the line before engaging in a thorough, hard-headed, and fact-based assessment of the costs and benefits. Would U.S. military intervention in Syria serve the security and prosperity interests of Americans in any way? Would a military strike on the Syrian regime actually make a difference in the war’s trajectory? Is the emotional benefit of punishing Assad for a bad act worth the considerable danger of an escalation with Russia and Iran? What legal basis would permit the White House to launch a round of missile strikes?