The strikes, therefore, seem to be an aggressive warning to ensure the prevention of any further use of chemical assaults in Syria. But it is likely to have only a limited impact, if any, on Assad’s continued use of collective punishment tactics, such as barrel bombs and starvation, against civilians in their homes, hospitals, markets and schools.

“I am so happy that someone has decided to prevent Assad from using chemical attacks,” said Raed Hassan, a resident of Idlib, where last week’s chemical attack took place. “But the regime is still able to kill us using other types of weapons. We do not want the discussion to focus only on limiting the types of weapons allowed to be used to kill us. We simply do not want to die.”

I was in northern Syria in 2013, when the regime carried out the Ghouta chemical attack. Syrians were waiting for Barack Obama to act on his supposed red line, hoping he would alleviate their suffering. I was there to share in the disappointment – and anger towards the US – after it decided to call off a military strike on the Assad regime, in exchange for striking a deal that would have the regime peacefully giving up its chemical arsenal.