Last week, President Trump stunned the world by striking Syria with 59 Tomahawk missiles in retaliation for Bashar al-Assad's use of chemical weapons against his own people. Since then, American diplomats have made contradictory statements in the aftermath of the attack. Was it a "one-off" or is regime change the goal? And why has President Trump retaliated against Syria's use of chemical weapons — but not conventional weapons, which are just as deadly? America's G-7 allies are meeting in Italy to find a consensus for dealing with Syria -- and with Russia — the next stop for America's Secretary of State. Is it too soon for the "political solution" all sides claim to prefer, or will force be used in attempting to remove the Assad regime from power?
Mixed messages from America's new hard line on Syria
Steve Scherer - Reuters - @SchererSteve, David Filipov - Washington Post - @davidfilipov, Kareem Shaheen - Guardian - @kshaheen, Alia Malek - journalist and civil rights attorney - @AliaMalek, Bassam Rifai - Free Syrian PAC / Syrian American Council