In a joint operation with France and Britain on Friday, the United States launched three separate air strikes on suspected chemical weapon production and storage facilities in Syria.

This act of retaliation by the Trump presidency and its European allies follows last week’s reports of a potential chemical weapons attack outside Damascus, which left 40 dead and many countries concerned and outraged with the Assad regime’s seeming disregard for the ban on these weapons.

President Donald Trump said from the White House, “These are not the actions of a man, they are crimes of a monster instead.”

On Saturday, reports began to come out of Douma, a small town outside of Syria’s capital of Damascus, describing what appeared to be the use of chemical weapons by the Syrian government in an effort to retake the area from rebel fighters. 

Independent medical groups working in the area found injuries concurrent with the use of chlorine gas among civilians. Foaming mouths, breathing problems and burning eyes, along with witness accounts of a strange smell, all begin to paint a horrifying picture of a recent development in this brutal civil war.

The BBC cited a rescue worker with the Syrian Civil Defense, saying not only did he smell chlorine in the air but they “later discovered the bodies of people who had suffocated from toxic gases. They were in closed spaces, sheltering from the barrel bombs, which may have caused their quick death, as no-one heard their screams.”

With the U.S. and other European countries quick to condemn these actions publicly, Russia offered a different narrative entirely. With military assets assisting the Syrian government, it was expected that Russia would warn against any military reaction from the West. 

Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov said in a press conference Friday that Russia has “irrefutable data that [this] was yet another staged event and staging was done … by the special services of one of the countries at the forefront of the anti-Russia campaign.”

Russia went on to further say that 71 of the 103 missiles fired in the recent strike were shot down by Russian provided missile defense systems, a claim which the Pentagon denies.

With Moscow viewing this retaliatory move as an act of aggression on the part of the U.S. and its allies, it is still unclear how President Vladimir Putin will respond as tension continues to rise.

This is not the first time Syria has been in the spotlight for their use of banned chemical weapons. A United Nations fact-finding mission confirmed the use of the nerve agent Sarin in multiple attacks in 2013, once again outside Damascus as well as Aleppo. 

U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations Nikki Haley told the UN Security Council on Saturday that “If the Syrian regime uses this poisonous gas again, the United States is locked and loaded.”

Many Americans are understandably hesitant to become heavily invested in another conflict in the Middle East, and Trump promising just last week to remove forces from Syria raises some questions as to the extent of our coming involvement.

While chemical weapons are an obvious breach of humanitarian standards and should obviously be condemned by the world, this raises the age-old question of whether or not the U.S. should be policing these situations.

With many domestic issues still unresolved, some of which revolve around our tense relationship with Russia, it will be interesting to see how the administration shifts its focus. Are these strikes a one-time retaliatory effort? Will they work in dissuading the Assad government from further use? Or is this the beginning of yet another global conflict for the U.S. to get entangled in?

My generation has yet to experience a serious global conflict, and these developments leave me wondering if that is a reality we might soon see come to fruition. There are lots of seemingly sensationalized headlines sporting phrases such as “World War Three,” and while part of me wants to believe this is purely clickbait enticement, it is hard to look past the facts. 

Russia is a superpower, accused of exploiting our democratic process and now at odds with us over a war-torn country which we just engaged. Not to mention our continuing tumultuous relationship with both China and, of course, North Korea. Our administration has requested Congress to approve a military budget of $686 billion for this coming year, with Trump saying the intention is “increasing arsenals of virtually every weapon.”

This scares me, as a student and the “future” of this country. Having seen the tail ends of Middle-Eastern conflicts, the thought of a new one involving multiple global entities is hard to be optimistic about. 

I find some reassurance with midterms coming up, and with Speaker of the House Paul Ryan stepping down, there is huge potential for a shift in Congress. What that means for Syria remains to be seen, but until then we can remain hopeful for some positive change.

Vote. Make your voice heard, and perhaps we can avoid another multi-trillion dollar Middle-Eastern conflict.