The world's eyes were focusing on the Asia pacific, the US-China summit and Trump's insistence that the US can deal with the North Korean problem ideally with China but on its own if need be. So expectations were running high that a US-led military intervention in the region could be imminent.
But this week's major geopolitical event was not where all eyes were watching, in the Asia pacific region, instead, it was in another hot spot, the middle east, Syria.
April 4 a suspected chemical attack on a rebel-held town of Khan Sheikhoun in north-western Syria indiscriminately killed 80 civilians, according to reports.
In the fog of war it unclear who did what.
The Syrian military has denied using any chemical agents which are prohibited under the United Nations Chemical Weapons Convention. Moreover, Russia who is fighting alongside Syrian government forces claims that an air strike (from whom?) hit a rebel depot full of chemical weapons.
However, a UK expert, Hamish de Bretton-Gordon (former commanding officer of the British Armed Forces Joint Chemical Biological Radiological Nuclear Regiment, said it was "pretty fanciful".
"Axiomatically, if you blow up Sarin, you destroy it," he told the BBC.
At least 80 people have been killed in a suspected chemical attack on a rebel-held town in northern Syria.
So who to believe?
Nevertheless, US President Trump did not spend much time analysing the evidence and consulting the international community (allies) on what would be the most appropriate, balanced and measured response.
Trump's reaction to the chemical attack in Syria was fast and furious. In less than forty-eight hours the President authorised a military response. US warships in the eastern Mediterranean were given the authorisation by their Commander and Chief to launch 59 Tomahawk cruise missiles. The missile's military GPS guided system was imputed with coordinates targeting various locations around the airfield including hangers and fuel storage areas. The 1,000-pound warheads were guided to their target and launched within one minute of each other. In other words, 59,000 pounds of explosives (in less than one hour) rained from the sky to disable an airfield.
To give you some idea of the magnitude of the attack the link below is a video of a 500lb going off real close in Iraq.
A video of a 500 lb bomb going off in IRAQ real close while filming.....pretty amazing
Did Trump just use a sledgehammer to crack a nut (59,000 pounds of explosives to disable an airfield)?
It is true to say that these guided missiles have an expiry date (a useful shelf-life) after then they need to be replenished.
But could there be another reason why Trump authorised a knockout punch?
Assuming that the fingerprints of the Syrian army are all over this latest chemical attack (this is yet to be proven) then a US military response would indeed be justified on humanitarian and legal grounds.
However, there is another angle to the US's latest military intervention in Syria, in a few words we are seeing yet again a flip-flop in Trump's policy.
Not too long ago Trump was planning to fight ISIS with Putin. Instead what we now have is two military superpowers (US and Russia) fighting a proxy war in Syria.
Currently, Russian military personnel and aircraft are embedded with Syria's, and Iranian troops and paramilitary forces are also on the ground helping Assad fight the array of opposition groups hoping to topple him.
Meanwhile, the US is bombing Syrian airfields.
So the probability of 59 US cruise missiles causing causalities to Russian military personnel embedded with Syria's forces is real. In a few words, Russia and the US are now fighting a civil war in Syria on opposite sides which could lead the two superpowers into a direct war. The worse case scenario is that a proxy war in Syria could escalate into WWIII
What's more, Trump knows this.
US-Russian bilateral relations could now be at a low ebb and in a dangerous downward spiral.
We have yet to learn Russia's reaction to the latest US military intervention in Syria.
Obviously, if the US's smart bombs caused Russian casualties in Syria it will be very difficult for the US to argue that it was not deliberate.
Assuming that there are Russian casualties and that Russia deduces that the US deliberately targeted Russian forces operating in Syria then WWIII could just be a matter of a Russian military response. But that would be the worse case scenario.
Perhaps Russian forces were given a heads up about a pending US air strike?
If so, there should be no Russian casualties which would help de-escalate tensions between the two superpowers.
So the risk off trade is likely to continue until it becomes clear what Russia's reaction is likely to be.
But what we can deduce is that this US President doesn't burn the midnight candle reading pages of intelligence to take military action. Trump is quick to punch hard and doesn't give much of a warning either.
That sends a message; play by the sheriff's rules or expect tough consequences which could lead to (coerced) peace or war. Moreover, when nukes are thrown into the equation it becomes the US's dangerous gamble.