How to respond to Assad

Again and again, the criminal syndicate masquerading as a government in Syria has used chemical weapons to destroy the rebels' hopes and morale. Where is the world?
Thankfully, the Israelis wasted no time responding, striking facilities in Damascus. Surely some will criticize them. But they shouldn’t, for the Jewish people know all too well what it’s like to be helpless in the face of a mad dictator.  
It'd be much easier for the Israeli's to do nothing.   
Where is the US?  Saudi Arabia?  France? Britain? Germany? Australia? Italy? Japan? Hopefully, not too far behind.  
In the old days, Assad may have been able to get away with such treachery.  But ever since Emily Hobhouse documented the Britain's torturous treatment of the Dutch Boers during the Boer War in 1902, war crimes around the world have spread, and quick.  In the age of CNN and BBC, Assad’s victims, helpless children unable to breathe, are broadcast to every corner of the globe, causing a universal outcry.  
Now, we need real action.  We don’t need half-baked action as Trump did with his strike a year ago, but full-on, in your face re-assertive action that shows the US is not a paper tiger.  
The lesson of Trump's June 6th 2017 response to Assad's use of chemical weapons is that it didn't burn enough; Assad has used chemical weapons against civilians again.  
Hillary Clinton called then for the US to "take out Assad's airfields," which was much more hawkish than Trump.  He should've listened, and perhaps Assad would've thought twice this time. 
Thankfully, John Bolton started at the NSA on Monday, and he’s likely to push for a massive retaliation, such as major strikes on Syria's airfields.  
This attack needs to hurt, while killing the least amount of people possible.  Major strikes against government military installations and assets may get the regimes attention this time around.
That’s the first step, but what comes next?  One strike doesn't substitute for long-term strategy, for which Trump has none.  
Eventually, things fall apart.  Assad, an alawite, can’t continue to oppress like this indefinitely.  Unfortunately, the Obama administration was hopelessly naïve in dealing with Syria, as Adam Garfinkle demonstrated in a blog last month.  American officials touted their removal of chemical weapons from the imperiled state, while more and more came through the back door (Russia) from North Korea.  
Iran, North Korea and Assad's nuclear programs are all intertwined.  A major strike on Syria would send a strong warning to these proliferators that the US is not afraid to use force in order to quell their programs, and deter the use of chemical weapons, no matter in what form.
Therefore, the response must come principally from the US, and be at least five times as punishing as the last.  Then, we must rethink our withdrawal from Syria, and push to carve up Syria into an Assad zone and a western-backed rebel zone.  Ideally, eventually will get rid of Assad altogether.  
Ignoring the problem won't make it go away. 
Bashar's father, Hafez, used brute force to kill thousands in 1982.  As long as an Assad controls the whole of Syria, thousands of innocent civilians will be killed or forced to flee.
We stand at a crossroads; Either we allow Assad, with Iranian and Russian help, to further consolidate power, or a joint world community responds and does what is right not only for those effected in Syria, but human rights around the globe.  When it comes to the use chemical weapons, the only response is a massive conventional response
History will thank us for doing so.
The author can be reached at [email protected] and @Dsmith1794 on Twitter.