Throughout his campaign, and in his first months as president, Donald Trump repeatedly rejected the idea that America should continue to play a leading role on the world stage. The strike on Syria last week, writes Elliott Abrams, represents a welcome departure from such rhetoric:

[T]he strike at Syria had at its heart precisely that kind of global leadership, to enforce the century-old ban on chemical warfare in the interest of decency and peace. . . . This strike will save lives—in Syria, by preventing Assad from daring to use chemical weapons again, and in unknown future conflicts where the losing side will be tempted to employ chemical weapons, and will think twice and not do it. Donald Trump saved more lives in Syria by his action this week than Barack Obama did in all his years in office. . . .

Trump’s decision may [also] create an opportunity for negotiations over Syria. The talks have never been serious because one can never achieve at a conference table what one has failed to achieve on the battlefield. But the battlefield may look a bit different now; it may be worth a try. Trump is right in saying that there were earlier opportunities in Syria and that he inherited a mess, but perhaps some kind of real cease-fire or truce is attainable this year. He has certainly boosted the chances.

The president has obviously not solved the problem of war in Syria, or that of Islamic State, or al-Qaeda, or a rising China and an aggressive Iran and a hostile Russia. Of course not. Moreover, he may waver in the coming months, and lead analysts to wonder if the Syria strike was a one-time emotional response to the sarin-gas attack. But he has put us back on the map in a new way; he has created some new space.

Robert Satloff has some harsh words for the U.S. government in this regard, words I take especially seriously because Satloff is someone inclined to political moderation. Why, he asks, have American diplomats failed to achieve anything in their endless rounds of talks in Doha and Cairo? Because

there is simply not enough pressure on Hamas to change course, accept a deal, and release the remaining October 7 hostages, stuck in nightmarish captivity. . . . In this environment, why should Hamas change course?

Publicly, the U.S. should bite the bullet and urge Israel to complete the main battle operations in Gaza—i.e., the Rafah operation—as swiftly and efficiently as possible. We should be assertively assisting with the humanitarian side of this.

Satloff had more to say about the hostages, especially the five American ones, in a speech he gave recently:

I am ashamed—ashamed of how we have allowed the story of the hostages to get lost in the noise of the war that followed their capture; ashamed of how we have permitted their release to be a bargaining chip in some larger political negotiation; ashamed of how we have failed to give them the respect and dignity and our wholehearted demand for Red Cross access and care and medicine that is our normal, usual demand for hostages.

If they were taken by Boko Haram, everyone would know their name. If they were taken by the Taliban, everyone would tie a yellow ribbon around a tree for them. If they were taken by Islamic State, kids would learn about them in school.

It is repugnant to see their freedom as just one item on the bargaining table with Hamas, as though they were chattel. These are Americans—and they deserve to be backed by the full faith and credit of the United States.