this is bbc news, broadcasting to our viewers in north america and around the globe. my name's mike embley. our breaking news this hour: the united states launches airstrikes against targets in syria. at least 50 cruise missiles were fired from american navy ships in the mediterranean. tonight i ordered a targeted military strike on the airfield in syria, from where the chemical attack was launched. the strikes are in response to a suspected syrian government gas attack on a rebel—held town that killed dozens of civilians. president trump has ordered a military strike on the airfield from where he says the chemical attack was launched in syria.

he said president assad had used a deadly nerve agent to kill many people. mr trump added that it was in america's national security interest to prevent the spread and use of chemical weapons. let's hear what he had to say. my fellow americans. on tuesday, the syrian dictator bashar al—assad launched a horrible chemical weapons attack on innocent civilians. using a deadly nerve agent, assad choked out the lives of helpless men, women and children. it was a slow and brutal death for so many. even beautiful babies were cruelly murdered in this very barbaric attack. no child of god should ever suffer such horror. tonight i ordered a targeted

military strike on the airfield in syria from where the chemical attack was launched. it is in this vital national security interest of the united states to prevent and deter the spread and use of deadly chemical weapons. there can be no dispute that syria used banned chemical weapons, violated its obligations under the chemical weapons convention and ignored the urging of the un security council. years of previous attempts at changing assad's behaviour have all failed and failed very dramatically. as a result, the refugee crisis continues to deepen

and the region continues to destabilise, threatening the united states and its allies. tonight i call on all civilised nations to join us in seeking to end the slaughter and bloodshed in syria and also to end terrorism of all kinds and all types. we ask for god's wisdom as we face the challenge of our very troubled world. we pray for the lives of the wounded and for the souls of those who have passed. and we hope that, as long as america stands forjustice, then peace and harmony will in the end prevail. we pray for the lives of those have passed and we hope that as long as america stands for justice passed and we hope that as long as america stands forjustice and —— then peace and harmony will prevail.

good night and god bless america and the entire world. our washington correspondent, barbara plett usher is in florida, where the us—china meetings are taking place. he has made the point that he is a precedent for whom redlines matter. that's right. he said after the chemical of an attack it crossed many lines and within 2a hours or a day or two he had ordered a strike against the air base from where he said the chemical weapons attack was launched. he said officials have come out and explained the thinking behind that and in essence they say this is very much a response related to the chemical weapons attack. rex tillerson has said this does not

change their policy on syria. it is very much a i—off directed at... at the attack carried out with the sarin nerve gas. he has also said that president trump... strike demonstrates that president trump is willing to act when governments ci’oss willing to act when governments cross the line, making the point that if syria crossed the red line then the trump administration would respond, drawing up the contrast really i would suggest with president obama, who set a red line and they did not respond. at the time mrtrump was and they did not respond. at the time mr trump was very much in support of that. he didn't want mr obama to intervene. now as president he has a different approach to that. also, not only responding to the syrian chemical weapons attack, but very much rush hour. mr rex

tillerson also said the russians we re tillerson also said the russians were either incompetent or a complicit with the syrians‘ use of chemical weapons because they guaranteed that if syria didn‘t give up guaranteed that if syria didn‘t give up the chemical weapons, they would ensure they did. so the administration has been making some very clear criticisms of russia in its role in backing bashar al—assad. president obama offcourse back in 2013 decided not to respond militarily because of that decision to re m ove militarily because of that decision to remove chemical weapons. clearly haven‘t removed the weapons. is there any advice that could be made to make that happen?” there any advice that could be made to make that happen? i can't really say at the moment whether. .. whether there will be a new push by the un 01’ there will be a new push by the un or the agency that deals with chemical weapons, to go after what

the syrians have and whether the russians would be willing under these circumstances to push the syrians to do so. i‘m not sure that was the goal of the strike. the goal of the strike was to register that the americans would respond if something like this happens. and in fa ct we something like this happens. and in fact we have a response from the head of the national security council, who said this was not a small strike but obviously the regime will retain a capacity to commit mass murder with chemical weapons beyond this airfield. in fa ct weapons beyond this airfield. in fact the regime has carried out at least 50 chemical attacks since 2013, when it agreed to get rid of its chemical weapons. suggesting that it its chemical weapons. suggesting thatitis its chemical weapons. suggesting that it is an ongoing problem, not one that will be solved with another decision to disarm. and a few more quotes from rex tillerson, talking about what was behind mr trump‘s

response. first of all he clarified that this was an entirely us operation. he also said that mr trump did not respond emotionally and that, as i said before, it was something... it was his decision to show that the us would attack if lines were crossed. he is the third president to come to office as a noninterventionist president, someone noninterventionist president, someone who gains office winning support from people who don‘t want the us getting involved in wars over seas. it isn‘t an unfair point, he came from tv, he cares how things look, this reference —— he references how people look. many times he said beautiful babies were hurt. it was the moving pictures literally off children suffering that seem to have moved in? he did reference those pictures are number of times. when he first responded to

the attack he talked about them and about the children in particular and now, when he made his statement, again he spoke about the children and how they suffered from the gas attacks. so he seems to have been moved by the impact of the... are very brutal impact of the weapons attacks. that and perhaps other things caused him to pivot from his position in a very short period of time, up until24— position in a very short period of time, up until 2a— 48 hours position in a very short period of time, up until 24— 48 hours ago. he was quite ambivalent about bashar al—assad. he said that the only thing the us was concentrating on in syria was fighting islamic state group and he even suggested that if the russians could work together with the syrians in fighting islamic state then what was the problem with that? so suddenly we have him carrying out this attack against assad. the obama administration, which was much more critical of bashar al—assad, didn‘t do that. was

probably moved by the pictures of the children but he can also move quite quickly when he feels he needs to do something and he didn‘t telegraph .co neither that he was going to do it. something that he also thinks is important, when he was asked, what will you do? will you respond? he said he wouldn‘t say. he likes that surprise element and it is very much the style of the strike that is his style. thank you very much. people have been seeing the images released by the pentagon of those cruise missiles being launched. we are hearing from the pentagon, cruise missiles have been fired from two navy destroyers towards an airfield near the city of homs. the airfield they believe the chemical weapons attack was launched from. the strike targeted runways, aircraft and fuel points. the

pentagon says that initially —— initial indications are that syrian aircraft, infrastructure and equipment was destroyed. rex tillerson says he believes the strike was proportionate. an indication that in strike was seen in military terms as a token attack. contained. not an indication of an entire new policy in the region, but of course that remains to be seen. we can now speak to the former deputy assistance to george w bush, brad blakeman. what‘s your thinking on all of this? i think we have a president who acted out of principle. he acted in defence of not only the innocence of syria but also the allies in the region. a red line was crossed and the president

of the us stepped up and did what presidents should do and that is defend not only our interests but those of our friends and our allies, and people who are caught up in a terrible civil war. if one thing is for sure, loud and clear, is president trump will act where other presidents may not have. there‘s a new regime in washington and we are going to stand on principle. he is also a president who was partly elected on the promise that he would never do this kind of thing and he attacked his predecessorfor doing it. no, quite the contrary. remember, he was a president who ran on building up a military, rejecting appeasement and surrender. and not getting involved in foreign wars. no, the president is going to act u nless no, the president is going to act unless it is in our interest to act.

he never said he would never act. what he said was he was putting americans first and then sticking up for allies, friends and innocence. he has always been for that. the palate really here is russia. —— the power. russia was given a heads up that the attack was coming. but there have been some harsh words from american officials, that russia was given the responsibility of clearing chemical weapons from this battlefield and they failed to do so, or make sure that new ones were made. do you think this will really make a difference? absolutely. this was as much a warning shot to russia as it was to syria. weapons of mass destruction used at any time, especially against the innocent, will not go unchallenged by the us. this was a targeted military strike,

a reaction, and it was robust to say the least. if they don‘t get the message, russia and syria, that the us won‘t stand on the sidelines any more, then they will get more of the same. there is no doubt about it. the united states in the last eight yea rs has united states in the last eight years has slipped out and a vacuum has been created and russia took advantage of it. china has taken advantage of it. china has taken advantage of it. china has taken advantage of the stand down of america. and when america is not strong, bad things happen around the world. we have to rebuild a la military and our reputation around the world. do you expect more of

this to come? -- our military. hopefully not, hopefully he‘s 59 tom walker missiles have delivered a message to turn this around, the russians will turn it around that it was their responsibility to read syria of weapons of mass destruction. they obviously did not do that. —— rid. they could have even been complicit in this attack. that remains to be seen. but their presence is there. that is for sure. and the blood is on their hands as much as the syrians‘. and the blood is on their hands as much as the syrians'. the attack was quite hideous, quite plainly, but it wasn‘t the worst in terms of loss of life on human suffering, why return with a military response when we haven‘t done before? with a military response when we haven't done before? we have a new president who has been in office for 70 days and he wasn‘t going to stand by and let it occur. he wasn‘t going

to wait for the united nations to pontificate. he was going to take action. it was swift action, it was direct, it was against a military target, and there is no doubt that a message was sent loud and clear, the question is if it will be heeded. what is the constitutional situation? he briefed the leadership before the attack. this was a targeted response to a horrific act of genocide. this is not an ongoing effort that needs congressional approval. he was well within their powers of the president to do what he did tonight. thank you very much indeed for that. jonathan schanzer is vice—president of research at the foundation for defence of democracies. thank you for your time. what are you making of all of this? what i

think we are looking at is a strike that was proportional, i think it was limited. i certainly don‘t believe that this is the beginning ofa believe that this is the beginning of a long and painful war in the middle east. i think this was a message to the assad regime, which has carried out many strikes along these lines the last several years, these lines the last several years, the us administration and the international community has shrugged at these attacks in the past. it is commendable the drum administration has responded the way that it has. i think it remains to be seen how the russians and iranians, the primary powers behind the assad regime, it remains to be seen how they respond. this might be a naive question but if it was as you say proportional and everyone except it was a contained attack, a token, the russians were given warning it was coming, what good will it do? well,

for one, it has weakened the assad f force, which was not terribly strong to begin with. —— assad airforce. it has depleted the fuel tanks. in other words, it is a response for every time the assad carries out a chemical attack, if they incur a strike like this, the air for chemical attack, if they incur a strike like this, the airfor —— forsett won‘t last. they are not willing to stand by while crimes at this are committed. that is the response. i think there is a much bigger problem at hand here. that is of course the broader syria civil war. i was fearful that the focus on isis and sunni jihadists was insufficient and that if you weaken only that part of the syrian conflict then you will see the strengthening of assad, hezbollah

and the irgc. right now it looks as if the trump administration is taking a balanced approach, of course, that is subject to change if this involves into something different than what we have seen tonight. the assad regime has been conducting pitiless slaughter on a huge scale but it is chemical weapons that we react to. do you see a broader move to end this?” weapons that we react to. do you see a broader move to end this? i don't. i wonder whether if we saw an attack with barrel bombs, which kills the same number of people in a cruel way every time a barrel bomb is dropped, the question is whether the us administration would respond similarly. i doubt it will. it is the kind of weapon that was used to note that is essentially what they are trying to deter. i think it yet remains to be seen whether the full weight of the us military will be

used for the ousting of assad. what we are picking up tonight is the administration wishes to use diplomatic power now after having entered the syria war in this limited way, that now diplomacy is going to be the preferred tactic in terms of trying to get assad a getting him out is very much a priority for this administration. —— trying to get assad alp. but getting him out. the us administration did not seem interested at all in assad‘s activities or what he was doing in syria. it appears the president has had a visit or response to the war crimes carried out by assad, a moral and ethical response, and i think that is commendable. and anyone would say it isa commendable. and anyone would say it is a strong case for the president to make that it is in america‘s vital interest to prevent the spread and use of chemical weapons. it gets more tricky with this — what is your

ta ke more tricky with this — what is your take on the nervousness among others that there might be an iranian response, maybe through that proxies, through to iraq, there might be 5000— proxies, through to iraq, there might be 5000- 7000 proxies, through to iraq, there might be 5000— 7000 troops in iraq, thenit might be 5000— 7000 troops in iraq, then it will be tricky for the us, won‘t it? then it will be tricky for the us, won't it? it certainly will and one cannot underestimate how iran might respond to this. they have the ability to destabilise yemen. they have the ability to destabilise iraq. they have the ability to be anti—in syria. they can make mischief in israel as well through the proxies hamas. hezbollah has a rockets facing south into israel. there are many ways that iran can respond to this. don‘t forget, we have seen iran has sent speedboats to harass us warships in the persian gulf. there is no end to how iran

can make this painfulfor the united states. the real question that i ask right now is whether this attack from the united states has established a modicum of deterrents. remember, the us hasn‘t responded with military might to any provocations of the iran, russia or assad provocations of the iran, russia or assa d a cts. provocations of the iran, russia or assad acts. they have done nothing like this for the last six years. the question is whether we have rattle that axis, if they are nervous in any way now, because the us has decided to deploy force. that would be the best outcome. one of the worst would be if russia, iran ora the worst would be if russia, iran or a combination make life miserable for the us around the middle east. thank you very much indeed for your contribution. we will speak to the director on arab politics at the washington institute for near east policy. this isa institute for near east policy. this is a pivot for the president, not

something he expected. he didn‘t wa nt to something he expected. he didn‘t want to get involved in other people‘s war. how significant is it? enormous, it could be a defining moment in that trump presidency. he was seemingly adrift on foreign policy. we had no idea where he was going, what he stood for. now we see a principled and presidential moment for the administration. and for the president himself. if you put that in combination with what the president said that he would like to do vis—a—vis destabilising behaviour, that could add up to a policy. on the assad, drawing lines, on the iranians, you know, rolling back the destabilising regional behaviour, it could amount to a

policy. so i think this is an opportunity here at it sends signals not only to the russians about a new robust approach to the region but also the president is meeting today with the president of china. the president of china may take away from this that president trump is a serious individual and wants to have a serious foreign policy. and it may encourage the chinese to take a different role vis—a—vis north korea, who knows? just briefly if you don‘t mind, what chance of it being a defining moment for the people in syria suffering in other ways, not just chemical people in syria suffering in other ways, notjust chemical weapons, and iam ways, notjust chemical weapons, and i am particularly thinking, if it is a change in policy, rex tillerson says there is no future for president assad as a leader of

syria, is it a policy of regime change? no, i wouldn't syria, is it a policy of regime change? no, iwouldn't read syria, is it a policy of regime change? no, i wouldn't read much into that. at the same time, another statement from the secretary of state saying that this doesn‘t necessarily represent a change of approach. our policies, and from everything we have been told, is still focusing on fighting isis. what we saw today it might be a momentary distraction. i think it represents something entirely different from what we saw for the last seven years, which was essentially a president with a real... hesitance to use any type of forced. david, thank you very much indeed. grateful for your contribution. thank you for being with us. much more on this and all of the news anytime on the bbc news website. thank you for watching. hello there, good morning. lots of pleasant weather on offer over the next few days for large

swathes of the united kingdom. and in fact, on thursday, it was a pretty decent day for many, although there was always a bit more cloud in the north and west, a little bit of rain with that, and that is where we keep most of the cloud overnight. it helps to give the temperatures up in the north and west, but generally it is a chilly night. major towns and cities, eight, nine degrees. but it is in the rural spots, away from the north and west, that we are going to see temperatures getting down to two or three degrees, so a chilly start for many, but a bright start as well, with lots of sunshine. the cloud that we see into north wales and the north—west of england, that looks like it will be breaking up through the morning. so by the afternoon we will see lengthy spells of sunshine for much of england, wales, eastern scotland, too. western scotland, ireland, always seeing more cloud. the odd spot of rain, most places dry. ten or 11 degrees in the north and west, but with some sunshine in cardiff and in london, it is 15 and 16 degrees in a few places. but, across england and wales, we do have quite high levels of tree pollen through the day on friday,

and that is causing hayfever sufferers a bit of a problem. other side of the atlantic, it is the wind which has been a bit of a problem for the golfers at augusta. that wind still in evidence on friday, but easing down. continues to ease down into the weekend, as temperatures are on the up. and temperatures will be rising back on our shores into the weekend. it‘s going to be a lovely day for much of england, wales, most of scotland, most of northern ireland too. it is just the far north—west which will have a little bit of rain. 16,17 or 18 degrees across england and wales, very pleasant indeed. with light winds, looks like a lovely day at aintree for the grand national. 16,17 degrees, some sunshine and light winds. it should be a fantastic day out. the second part of the weekend has this area of light high pressure drifting away towards the near continent. the winds started to drift in from a more southerly direction. the air will be coming up from spain, from france, and it will be quite warm air heading ourway. and the effects of that will be most felt across england and wales on sunday, because towards the north and west we will see a weather front

drifting its way in. that is going to bring some cloud, some patchy rain, slightly lower temperatures here. patchy cloud for the western side of england and wales. further east, there is going to be light winds, plenty of sunshine, and quite a warm day. the west of england will be easily into the low 20s. i think around 22, 23 degrees will be the top temperatures, maybe about ten or 11 in the far north and west. but we do have a weather front drifting its way south sunday night into monday, and as that happens it is going to shut the warm air out of the way. colder air will follow along behind, so monday a very different look and a very different feel to things. there is going to be a lot more cloud in the sky. it is going to be quite breezy. there will be a few more showers dotted around, as well, and temperatures will be taking a bit of a tumble.

the latest headlines from bbc news. i‘m mike embley. the us military says its carried out a cruise—missile attack on a syrian airbase from which government planes staged a chemical weapons attack on a rebel—held town. more than 50 tomahawk cruise missiles were fired from american navy ships in the mediterranean, hitting the airbase in the city of homs. speaking in florida, donald trump said president assad had used a deadly nerve agent to kill civilians, including what he called "beautiful children and babies." he called on civilised nations to end the slaughter in syria, as well as terrorism. mr trump said the action was in america‘s national security interest. syrian military sources say us strikes on an air base have caused losses. describing the strike as an act of "aggression," a government spokesman said "one of our air bases in the centre of the country was targeted at dawn by a missile fired by the united states." now it‘s time for hardtalk.