i'm richelle carey. in the next 15 minutes president obama will announce his strategy regarding syria. >> that's right. we're standing by waiting for the president to come out in the rose garden to make remarks about his decision-making process on syria. >> u.n. chemical weapons inspectors brief leaders on their findings in syria just returning from damascus. president obama is about to make a statement from the white house regarding syria.

the president's address will take place as he decides what action to take against syria following last week's chemicals weapons attack against civilians in a damascus suburb. let's go to paul who joins us live from washington. paul, what can we expect the president to say? >> reporter: what we've learned is this is not an announcement that an attack on syria is imminent. it's important to emphasize he won't come out and announce an attack is imminent. what he is going to talk about is talk about his decision-making process, what's been going on about the intelligence, about his consultations with congress, perhaps, consultations with allies. again, it's about his decision-making process toward any potential action in syria. >> so basically i guess it's safe to say what we heard yesterday from secretary of state kerry was a setup to what we'll hear from the president today? >> reporter: that's right. this announcement came out about an hour ago, so after we heard

from the secretary of state kerry yesterday very forceful remarks followed not long after by the president. we were not expecting to hear again from the pez today. the white house announced they were consulting with republican leaders in the senate and tomorrow with the house, but no mention until about an hour ago, as i say, of further remarks from the president. this is new, and we'll hear more about what this process has been and what he is thinking in advance of any potential strike on syria. >> let's talk more about congress. where do things stand with the president looping in congress and even trying to convince them, if you will? >> reporter: again, as you say, he's still in convincing mode. he's going to be -- the white house top official, secretary of state kerry, secretary of defense hagel and national security adviser susan rice scheduled to talk later this afternoon with senate gop. tomorrow white house officials now scheduled to talk with the

house and share classified intelligence. still very much in convincing mode, and apparently the president feels the need to convince the american people publicly from the rose garden of the case he wants to make about any attack on syria. >> okay, paul. i'm sure you will stick around. we'll rejoin you at 1:15. we will carry it live when the president addresses the american people and continues to explain what his thinking is, what his strategy is on syria live at 1:15 on al jazeera. u.n. weapons inspectors are believed to have arrived in netherlands, but the u.s. has made it clear they don't need u.n. approval for any action they decide. james, what have you heard from u.n. spokesperson? what's the latest? >> reporter: the latest is the u. nment -- u.n. inspectors left syria and are in the netherlands where they will carry out laboratory work, certainly days possibly a couple of weeks with a final report.

a final report that the u.s. has said it probably won't wait for because they say they already know the outcome of this investigation. they're pretty certain there was a chemical weapons attack, and they're pretty certain the attack came from the assad regime. here at the u.n. we got more details on the thinking of the secretary-general ban ki-moon from his official spokesman. >> the mandate is the mandate. the team and the secretary-general will abide by that mandate to be able to the expectations of the international community come up with, as i've just said, in an impartial and credible manner evidence collected from the ground and then analyze it. those findings will be made, as i've just said a little while ago, available to member states as soon as that analysis is completed. >> reporter: that's a comment. the mandate is very important. that was in answer to a question, will the u.n. think of

expanding the mandate of its investigation? at the moment they can only determine were chemical weapons used, not who they were used by. ban ki-moon came up with the mandate, but it doesn't sound like he's going to change it. here at the u.n. no signs of the security council meeting in the coming hours. at any point any country, including russia, which has been very voc cal, vladimir putin very vocal in the last few hours, could call a meeting if they wanted. >> james, president obama made it clear they need the approval of the u.n. to do anything. yesterday secretary of state kerry flat-out said the united nations isn't going to tell us anything we don't already know when speaking of intelligence. how is the u.n. reacting to that? >> reporter: well, the u.n. is simply saying when asked about questions about the u.s. going it alone, look at the charter of the united nations. they're not saying it explicitly, but that charter says that any military action should be authorized by the security council. there are, though, i think no

hurdles now for the obama administration. they've said they're not going to wait for the chemicals weapons report. they made it clear they won't get authorization from the security council. the only thing important on the time line now is the fact that world leaders are meeting on thursday next week, and it happens to be taking place in russia. president obama is supposed to go to russia, so diplomats here say they think it's likely the obama administration would want to take any military action well before thursday, so it's all done and dusted. the fallout has taken place before he has to go to russia, otherwise that could be a pretty tense meeting of the g-20 group of leaders. >> tense for sure. james spaeth, thank you so much. thousands of syrians have fled their homeland in the past few days, but some are heading home. david jackson has more on the border between syria and lebanon. >> reporter: here at the border there's an increased amount of traffic over the past three

days, but today there's a distinct difference. most of the cars have been going into syria, not coming out. it turns out that many of the syrians who left sat and thought about what they had done once they went into lebanon, the safety of lebanon, and decided they wanted to go back home to their country regardless of what may lie ahead. they're all very strong supporters of the bashar al assad regime and said said straight out they want to be with him should he and that government come under fire. >> russia is speaking out against possible military action against syria. putin is calling on the u.s. to think about whether the strike would stop the violence, and is expressing doubts that the assad regime was behind the attack. >> translator: common sense speaks for itself. the syrian government forces are advancing, and in some regions they have circled the rebels.

under these circumstances, giving a winning card for those that constantly call for military intervention is utter nonsense. it does not fit any logic, especially on the day of the arrival of the u.n. inspectors. i think they want to gain support from policy international players, first of all the united states. >> a correspondent in moscow has more on those comments by the russian president. >> reporter: this is the first time we've heard from president putin in many months discussing syria. the last time the topic was brought up was at the g-8 summit in northern ireland when he met with president obama. the talk then was very much of a peace conference in geneva. that's long gone and long past. i think now president putin realizes this is possibly the last chance, possibly the last chance he's got to deliver his verdict on a possible strike. the possibilities could begin at any time, so he took this

opportunity to appeal to president obama saying, be careful. think twice before you commit forces to attacking syria. he said, i'm speaking to the president basically as a no bell peace prize laureate and asking obama how many civilians would be killed and innocent lives taken if the strike went ahead. as far as putin is concerned, as far as the kremlin is concerned, this attack, if it takes place, has nothing to do with chemical weapons. it's all about degrading the syrian military and securing victory for the rebels. >> and do keep it here on al jazeera. about a quarter after the hour we expect to hear from the president. we will carry that for you live.

millions who need assistance now. we appreciate you spending time with us tonight. up next is the golden age of hollywood going golden but elsewhere. why l.a.'s mayor has declared a state of emergency for the entertainment industry there. next. components of the aljazz mission.

welcome back. that's a live shot the rose garden at a quarter after the hour. a few minutes from now we expect to hear president obama make a further statement and perhaps a further explanation of what his thinking and strategy is on syria. as soon as that happens, we will take that live for you so you can hear from the president.

in the meantime, to understand the conditions of u.s. engagement in syria and to assess the international implications, here's jim walsh ant international security expert at m.i.t. good for you to join us again. we need you at times like this. we appreciate your insight so much. both russia and iran have -- let me get this right. have warned of the catastrophic repurr -- repercussions in the region if u.s. engages. what does that mean? >> iran has said don't strike syria, our ally, or there will be massive retaliation. as one who has been to iran, it's rhetorical. you get big statements like this. it's not surprising that iran is saying at least in words, not actions, don't hit our ally. i think when russia is saying there are going to be consequences, what they're saying is not that they're going

to do something to the united states but rather that they fear that this military intervention will have repercussions in the region. it could widen the war and make the sectarian violence worse. that set of consequences rather than something they would do themselves. >> how involved is iran and what is going on in syria? >> iran is deeply involved, but it has mixed feelings about this. syria is iran's only ally in the region, and for that matter, russia has this long-time tie to syria. russia's only naval port, and it's a modest one but the only naval port outside of the soviet union is in syria. both have long-term ties to syria. this has evolved over time where there's a religious dimension of this, because folks that are supporting the assad government tend to be shea and the rebels are sunni. there's a dimension of that. iran feels very strongly against chemical weapons.

saddam gassed them. this is an emotional and ethical issue for them, so they're feeling uneasy about all this. >> what do you think we'll hear from the president in a couple of minutes? >> i don't know, but i think it's odd he spoke yesterday and comes out on a saturday of labor day weekend to issue another speech that they hadn't previously announced. >> let me ask you this. do you think it's because he's taken the temperature of some in congress who have been a little resistant and feels like he needs this extra step? >> it could be that. it could be overnight polling that said that the first day's speeches did not move the dial as much as they thought. it may be there's new information that emerged. if this attack will happen soon, this is a steady diet of officials including the president making the case this is a good idea. >> how long do you think this will last? were you surprised by how long secretary kerry spoke yesterday? >> i was. i was very surprised by his speech. >> it was about a 20-minute speech. >> very detailed and up-front confronted the issue of iraq that overhangs this and the

perception of it and laid out the intelligence. i was surprised. this might be a speech we see from the president today that says, i've decided. here's how i decided. so far he said that the evidence is certain, but i have not yet decided. i'm considering my options. this might be the decision speech. not the i've launched speech, but that i've decided. >> but their styles are different and their roles are different. the role of secretary of state and president are two very different things. >> absolutely. i think the thing that was established yesterday is other than the president, it's certainly the secretary of state that's carrying water for this. he's the front person on this. he sort of led the charge, as it were, and i think whether you agree with the policy or not, i thought it was an effective speech yesterday. >> do you think perhaps depending on effective the president is when he comes out it could persuade the international community that's not on board, or we'll it raise more questions? more people may say this is not enough. i need to hear more. >> i think positions on this are pretty much dug in. this is my sense.

i don't have great numbers on this. i think there are a lot of allies that want the u.s. to do something but won't say it out loud. the "wall street journal" reported south korea is pushing the u.s. to do something because they're worried about chemical weapons in north korea. they want the u.s. to lay down a deterrent message saying don't use these weapons, because they're worried about the north. certainly turk ee eee -- tury a saudi arabia and they want us to do something. the humanitarian part where they worry about getting into war. sort of from that that's how positions get formed. >> what do you say to those that feel there has to be other underlying geopolitical issues. as awful as chemical weapons are, there are other underlying issues besides that. >> i just don't think so. i understand that suspicion, but this is a war obama did not want to get into.

he's dragged his feet on this, right? he's been criticized in the congress repeatedly by mccain and others say you should act on this, and he's saying i don't want any piece of it. a year goes by and doesn't anything and then says we'll fund some rebel groups we vet, but we won't get directly involved. he doesn't want to get involved. i really do think this is about chemical weapons. i really do. >> as you and i are speaking, let me remind viewers what we're waiting on. a couple minutes behind schedule, but we expect at any moment for the president to come out to the podium set up in the rose garden. we're not exactly sure what he'll say. paul will give more background on what we know about what we think the president will say regarding syria. help me out here. >> reporter: richelle, this is not an announcement from the president of an eminent strike on syria. what we expect to hear is more of his thinking and decision-making process.

it really can't be overstated. this is a very dramatic moment, really one of the highest responsibilities and collings of this office is to communicate to the country in times of conflict what is going on. that is exactly what we're expecting to hear from the president this afternoon any minute now. >> he's also spent much of the day, much of yesterday as well briefing members of congress who have had some really tough questions about this. >> reporter: that's right, that's right. his top advisers are talking to both gop senate leaders today, and tomorrow talking to the house sharing some of that classified intelligence that we've been hearing so much about. we saw a declassified version yesterday or at least shortly after secretary of state kerry's very aggressive speech. again, the president is still in convincing mode, still working to get support from congress from both sides of the aisle. >> to be clear, that support will never actually in all likelihood won't be a vote in

congress. >> that does seem unlikely, and it doesn't seem like the administration is willing to even ask for it explicitly. that's a whole different route. at this point what they're looking for, it seems, is support that is going to allow them to proceed with what at this point feels almost inevitable. some kind of strike. they want to make sure that the congress is somewhat lined up behind it. as far as a formal authorization, it's hard to say if and when that could come. >> paul, stay close. i'm going back now to jim walsh, international security expert. there's a group that prefers diplomacy, and there's a group that would certainly want military strikes. is it possible to do both paths? >> well, i think we'll get -- i think we'll get some of both. we'll get -- you know, we've tried the diplomatic path for a while for the past two years. the two big challenges on diplomacy are, one, the russians are, you know the strongest ally syria has, a member of the

security council and can veto any sanctions or anything related to that. the u.n. has tried negotiations, and others have tried. the problem with civil wars, civil wars are among the nastiest wars to fight. when two countries fight each other, it's easier to negotiate. when you fight brother against brother, family against family, shiite against sunni, very hard to negotiate in particular if you think you're winning. a year ago it looked like assad was losing, and now it looks like he's winning. winners don't like to negotiate if they think they will win, because they fear whoever wins the other side is killed. this is a zero-sum game. we can't afford to lose. >> exactly, exactly. what is your understanding of what the goals are? do you feel that the u.s. has laid out what the goals are? >> i don't think we've -- i don't think we've -- not precisely, and you raised an important earlier about the audience. what are we saying to other

countries? paul talked about talking to the american people. there maybe another audience for this, and that may be syria and assad. the things that the president is saying -- he's trying to shape how syria is going to interpret this attack. this gets to the issue of objectives. russia fears we will take out a bunch of military assets and weaken assad. that's a big objective requiring a lot of targets and a lot of work for a long time. i don't think that's what we're going to do. the president is talking about -- >> what would the result of that be? >> that's definitely pushing things towards chaos, right? that would inflame the situation. if you push assad against the wall where the loser dies, then all sorts of extreme behavior become possible. if he's extreme now, wait until he thinks he's really in danger. back to the other things that could happen, i think in terms of objectives it is -- if it's going to be limited, which is what the president repeatedly

said, it's one of two things. either we send a deterrent message to assad. you use this we're whacking you. don't do it again, or we will whack you harder. do not use the khem. that could be the sole objective. a second objective you could tack on that's harder. don't do this and we're going to take you out. we're going to attack your arsenal and manufacturing facilities and the military personnel and units that you have, the chem units that use these terrible weapons and try to degrade that. that's a more challenging objective. if you bomb the arsenal, do you send plumes of toxins? so that's a more challenging task. i think at a minimum the objective will be laying down a message that says, don't do this again. >> okay. let's remind people it's about 7 minutes behind schedule, but we expect it any moment. we are camera-ready and the podium is ready for the

president to come out there to the rose garden right outside of the white house and to give more of an explanation on his thinking. on his strategy and where he wants to go with the situation in syria. just yesterday we heard from secretary of state john kerry who spoke for 20 minutes laying out the intelligence that he says the u.s. has that makes the united states certain, he says, that bashar al assad used chemical weapons against his own people. the numbers we heard yesterday were numbers we hadn't heard yet. yes, the video you're looking at is very difficult, graphic video to see. what secretary of state john kerry said yesterday is the result of this chemical attack that he says the u.s. has said is certainly carried out by the assad regime resulted in the deaths of 1400 people, paul, 400 of which were children. in making the case for why he says the u.s. should do something, why he says the international community should do something, he's very much personalized this message.

speaking from being a father, quite frankly. do we have paul? >> reporter: on friday he said that this was difficult for him personally to look at these pictures. he mentioned seeing rows upon rows of corpses wrapped in white shrouds untouched by the taint of blood implying that there were no wounds, that this was a chemical attack that struck these people down. he also mentioned and he used graphic imagery as well in his language saying that u.s. allies, jordan and israel are just a stiff breeze away from where these attacks took place. really emphasizing the regional aspect of the use of chemical weapons. again, a very aggressive message from secretary of state kerry and followed by remarks from president obama yesterday. what are they going to add to that discussion today? >> let's contrast that, paul, to the evidence that the u.n. has

been gathering. ve they have been gathering evidence as well and just left the country. they're now in the netherlands. they have been clear to say our role is to determine whether or not an attack happened. our role is not to place blame. in a significant segment of the world, they're not actually agreement on who is responsible. >> reporter: that's right. the u.n. is emphasizing its there to perform a forensic analysis and not to pass judgment or point fingers on who actually deployed these weapons. what secretary of state kerry said yesterday is that there's nothing the u.n. can tell the u.s. that the u.s. doesn't already know. effectively discounting whatever results may be forforthcoming from the u.n. as we heard from james from the u.n. a little earlier, this does not sit well with the u.n., but it's the position that the secretary of state took very

aggressively yesterday followed on by remarks by president obama. in fact, just a little while ago national security adviser susan rice on twitter saying there is no question that the assad regime used chemical weapons indiscriminately much like secretary kerry said yesterday. row upon row of corpses wrapped in these white shrouds. >> wow. let's talk more about the debate going on in the united states about what, if anything, to do. let's be blunt. when we talk about war and how much money the united states has spent on war, money is a factor. talk about how that is factored into some of the questions that we have heard from members of congress. >> reporter: yes. congress has expressed skepticism on many fronts, and one is sure to be the fiscal front. at the time of belt-tightening and sequestration, those questions are certain to be raised. one little tidbit here, the missile -- the destroyers that were parked off the syrian coast

carrying tomahawk missiles, military analysts say some 200 could be used in any attack on syria. those missiles cost at least $1 million apiece. right there the cost of the missiles is only a fraction of the total deployment in what some kind of operation might actually cost. the cost of the missiles alone is $200 million. these add up quickly, and that's top of mind with members of congress. >> let me go back to the security expert, dr. jim walsh. he's talking about the types of weaponry that may be used. talk about that. what are the types of weapons that you think will be used, should this strike happen? >> it always comes back to objectives. if you're simply trying to send a message to assad, that's all you're trying to do, then it can be quite limited, and it would be tomahawk missiles. you'd want to avoid putting, if you could, u.s. personnel,

military personnel in harm's way. >> let's stop in a second. we have a two-minute warning we'll hear from the president shortly. we can talk up to the moment. we want viewers to know the president will come to the podium very, very shortly. >> the bigger the objective, the more assets you will bring to bear. b-1s and b-2s and other aircraft and submarines that may launch cruise missiles. that's what you're trying to accomplish. the cost is a legitimate concern. some estimates say we have spent over $4 trillion on the iraq and afghan wars. a lot of that is medical benefits for people injured that will last for decades. when you're a country under sequestration and whose economic growth has not been as strong as we would like, these economic issues with worth considering. >> in fact, yesterday secretary kerry used the word "war wary" and the president, in fact, used that. they very much know what's in the back of people's minds.

it's the money. it's the loss of life. it's the stress on families. it's so many things. it's almost like they know exactly who it is they're speaking to, and they realize the buttons they're trying to push to convince people. they understand the audience, if you will. >> i think you put your finger on something very important. that is the stress on families, because folks are called up, whether they're used or not, the u.s. military has to prepare for a wide variety of contingencies if things go poorly or if the unexpected happens. they have to get everyone up, call people who had taken a time off, call them back up and get them ready and trained. so even if they're not used -- >> even if there's no boots on the ground, that does not mean there's not people -- >> they have to report for duty, and it's an emotional stress for all families. no doubt about it. >> we expect at any moment the president to come to the podium there at the rose garden to speak to the american people to explain what -- not exactly what the literal next step will be in syria, but at the very least

what his thinking is on what is happening in syria. this is just one day after the secretary of state came and spoke for 20 minutes laying out what he says the u.s. intelligence is. he says that regardless of what the u.n. report will be, he's very, very confident the evidence that they have they're certainly the assad regime carried out this ghastly chemical attack against their own people in the suburbs in damascus. paul, we're close to hearing from the president now. it's interesting to see what he says. some describe him as professorial, so it's interesting to see how much detail he goes into explaining this. >> reporter: yesterday secretary kerry was very emotional and at the same time very evidence-specific saying repeatedly these are the things that we know. we have high confidence in that intelligence, and yet, the administration continuing to try to make the case to members of congress as well as to the american people. we're hearing from senior adminiti