the time. not to strike syria at the time. that is right. that was then and this is now. perhaps prime minister theresa may has seen that and decided not to take the chance of going to parliament. to be fair, i think therejust was going to parliament. to be fair, i think there just was not time. even if she was minded to go to parliament, there was a time to do it. it is quite clear that president trump and possibly president macron and friends were looking to act quickly, strike while the iron is hot, not to let the moment pass, as perhaps president obama did, as you said, afew perhaps president obama did, as you said, a few years ago. they're practically wasn't time. it is quite possible that the prime minister would have been sounding out members of her own party, possibly even member is of the opposition, although that is unlikely. i think time precluded the opportunity of the british parliament having a say in whether action should be taken up. thank you very much. please don't go away. keep an eye across the wires for us and let us know what is going on. just to keep you up—to—date with what is happening, we got reports

that president trump was going to be addressing the nation at the white house, and president trump eventually did, and mounting that the united states was carrying out targeted airstrikes within syria in reaction to the syrian regime's chemical weapons attack on its own people in the damascus suburb of douma, that happened on sunday night, early monday morning. president trump has done that in conjunction with the united kingdom and with france. let's speaking out, as president trump was speaking, there were reports from reuters newsagency that there has been smoke rising up in the east of damascus and also explosions being heard. let's now speak to the ceo of strategic sense in which is a non—partisan think tank in national security and international relations in washington. thank you forjoining us. in washington. thank you forjoining us. how would these extracts work, what kind of missiles are being used, and who and what is being targeted? that's really going to

depend on, we will find out more information when these strikes conclude in the next couple of hours. but one can assume that the strikes are being carried out at least for the moment by surface and subsurface assets offered —— operating in the mediterranean, probably the uss donald kirk, that destroyer, some other submarines such as the junior class and chicago class could be operating tomahawks inside syria. we don't know what exact assets are being used, at least for the next couple of hours, and we could get some video or photos of air assets being used like fighters, but not necessarily bombers from the united states. but it will be a few hours before we can figure that out. what is the rationale, what are military advisers and military planners thinking at this point in time, how

did they decide to choose what the target should be? i think what president trump said in his speech was the object it here is precision strikes against assad's chemical weapons manufacturing capabilities. and theirfour weapons manufacturing capabilities. and their four strikes could be targeted at the manufacturing plants anywhere in syria, i think some reports a few minutes ago said explosions were being heard outside damascus, storage facilities and where you keep those chemical weapons, and even perhaps the assets that you use to deploy them, helicopters, artillery pieces perhaps. those are going to be the primary strikes, at least that is what i can gather from primary strikes, at least that is what i can gatherfrom president trump's speech. of course we just won't know until a few more hours just how widespread this is. but it appears we are going after they chemical weapons capability in their ability to deploy those chemical

weapons on their citizens. that would be wider in scope than last year, because i believe last year when president trump authorised strikes against syria after that sarin attack, that was to strike the means of deploying those chemical weapons, so means of deploying those chemical weapons, so mostly airfields in that kind of thing, not necessarily, i could be wrong, but not necessarily the chemical weapons dumps for example. that's correct. they targeted an air base, and in fact did not do much damage that could not have been reversed in the course of six weeks after the attack. this attack most certainly is more widespread than the attack last year. i would reckon the attack last year. i would reckon the attack last year was nearly a pinprick against assad's regime. this attack appears to be much more widespread, targeting the chemical weapons capabilities. i think you are correct, at the airbase there they we re correct, at the airbase there they were targeting the means which they we re were targeting the means which they

were deploying chemical weapons, this certainly seems bigger than that. as the discussion was taking place about what to do and what the united states and the united kingdom and the west as a whole should do, the russians were saying that if their soldiers or their assets were targeted, that they would respond in kind. not respond in kind, but protect themselves and shoot down missiles coming their way. the question to you ryan, is, presumably the united states will know whether russian assets are and avoid those assets? yes, presumably. we would not want to be targeting actual russian assets and service members. we would most likely be targeting only assad regime controlled assets. that does not mean that russia may implement their own assets in country, they may decide to shoot down and take out incoming tomahawk missiles if they perceive them to be

a threat. but i would assume that the united states and the united kingdom and france would only target assad regime asset, and specifically those of a 100% can verify our assad's assets. even if there is an asset that we believe is controlled by syrian forces, we may not decide to target that just by syrian forces, we may not decide to target thatjust because it could be serviced by russian service members, and we would not want to be killing them, that would most certainly elicit a more hostile response from moscow, perhaps not in syria but elsewhere in the world, but that would be a dangerous situation and i don't think that is on the table. my colleague here in the studio talk about the timing and whether there was enough time to recall parliament in order to make a decision about this attack, and in fa ct decision about this attack, and in fact when the syrian government attack on the suburb of douma happened, i believe there was a question about whether a country

such as france and the united kingdom and the united dates had all their assets in place to be able to carry out those kinds of strikes. so presumably over the past four or five days, those warships and aircraft carriers had to be put in place for those strikes happen now? there is a carrier strike group that has... but the united states navy put out a statement today that that was a regular scheduled deployment and had nothing to do with events going on in the world. it is assume, the navy has said it was really scheduled appointment, but it is assumed that it is heading towards the mediterranean, it is not there yet, but the four or five days run—up that we had most certainly was to move assets around and pick targets. there was a point where they had a target list and i don't know if this is confirmed or rumour, but they had to change that list when syrian forces shuffle around in

the country. but most certainly several assets were deployed to the region to be able to strike effect flea. as i said, i still think that this initial bombardment is being conducted by warships that are already in the area, possibly subsurface assets in the area, if they want to do a more widespread strikes, air assets perhaps operating out of cyprus would be a nominal option for them to use. thank you very much ryan, the ceo of strategic centre knell which is a non—partisan think tank in national security and international relations in washington. let's remind you of what president trump said when he announced the strikes around a0 minutes ago. a short time ago i ordered the united states armed forces to launch

position strikes on target position strikes on targets associated with the chemical weapons capabilities of syrian dictator bashar al—assad. a combined operation with the armed forces of france and the united kingdom, is now under way. we thank them both. tonight i want to speak with you about why we have taken this action. one year ago assad launched a savage chemical weapons attack against his own innocent people. the united states responded with 58 missile strikes that destroyed 20% of the syrian air force. last saturday the assad regime again deployed chemical weapons to slaughter innocent civilians, this time in the town of douma near the syrian capital of damascus. this massacre was a significant escalation in a pattern of chemical weapons use by that very terrible regime. the evil and the despicable attack

left mothers and fathers, infants and children thrashing in pain and gasping for air. these are not the actions of a man, they are crimes of a monster in stead. of a monster instead. following the horrors of world war i, as century ago, civilised nations joined together to ban chemical warfare, chemical weapons are uniquely dangerous, not only because they inflict gruesome suffering, but because even small amounts can unleash widespread devastation. the purpose of our actions tonight is to establish a strong deterrent against the production, spread and use of chemical weapons.

establishing this deterrent is a vital national security interest of the united states, the combined american british and french response to these atrocities will integrate all instruments of our national power, military, economic and diplomatic. we are prepared to sustain this response until the syrian regime stops its use of prohibited chemical agents. i also have a message tonight for the two governments most responsible for supporting, equipping and financing the criminal assad regime. to iran and to russia. i ask, what kind of a nation wants to be associated with the mass murder of innocent men, women and children? the nations of the world can be judged by the friends they keep.

no nation can succeed in the long run by promoting rogue states, brutal tyrants and murderous dictators. in 2013 president putin and his government are honest and his government promised the world that they would guarantee the elimination of syria's chemical weapons. assad's recent attack and today's response are the direct result of russia's failure to keep that promise. russia must decide if it will continue down this dark path, or if it willjoin with civilised nations as a force for stability and peace. hopefully someday we will get along with russia, and maybe even iran, but maybe not. i will say this. the united states has a lot to offer. with the greatest and most powerful economy in the history of the world,

in syria, the united states, with but a small force being used to eliminate what is left of isis, is doing what is necessary to protect the american people. over the last year nearly 100% of the territory once controlled by the so—called isis caliphate in syria and iraq has been liberated and eliminated. the united states has also rebuilt ourfriendships across the middle east. we have asked our partners to take greater responsibility for securing their home region, including contributing large amounts of money for the resources, equipment and all of the anti—isis effort. increased engagement from ourfriends including

saudi arabia, the united arab emirates, egypt can ensure that iran does not profit from the eradication of isis. america does not seek an indefinite presence in syria. under no circumstances. as other nations step up their contributions, we look forward to the day when we can bring our warriors home. and great warriors they are. looking around our very troubled world, americans have no illusions. we cannot purge the world of evil, or act everywhere there is tyranny. no amount of american blood or treasure can produce lasting peace and security in the middle east. it is a troubled place. we will try to make it better, but it is a troubled place. the united states will be

a partner and a friend, but the fate of the region lies in the hands of its own people. in the last century we looked straight into the darkest places of the human soul, we saw the anguish that can be unleashed, and the evil that can take hold. by the end of world war i, more thani million people had been killed or injured by chemical weapons. we never want to see that ghastly spectre return. so today the nations of britain, france and the united states of america have marshalled their righteous power against barbarism and brutality. tonight i ask all americans to say a prayer for our noble warriors and our allies as they carry out their missions. we pray that god will bring comfort

to those suffering in syria. we pray that god will guide the whole region toward a future of dignity and of peace. and we pray that god will continue to watch over and bless the united states of america. thank you and good night. that was a statement from president trump. that was about a6 minutes ago, when he said that the united states, in conjunction with the united kingdom and france, with carrying out a strike. we can have a look at the pentagon now, because we are expecting them to make a state in tender next 15— 20 minutes. —— statement in the next. that will be the military strategy, perhaps, of what is going on, and these extracts targeting syria. this is of course a

joint operation, as i said, with the uk and france. britain's prime minister, theresa may, has issued a statement. well, joining me as the bbc‘s ben adler, our correspondent, keeping an eye on what is going on. we have spoken a bit about the uk's involvement in this, and we understand the french have also been speaking? that's right. we have a statement from the ministry of defence describing what british forces have been doing. i will come to that in a minute. but emmanuel macron has put out a statement. he says the french involvement will be

an attack on syria's chemical weapons facilities. he says they are fighting alongside the united states and the uk. he says, we cannot tolerate the recurring use of chemical weapons, which is an immediate threat to the syrian people and our collective security. that was a statement from the french presidential office. in terms of the british involvement, more details have emerged. what we know is that it involved four aircraft, four tornado gra aircraft, firing storm shadow missiles at a military plant where it is believed to syrian regime has been storing and stock tiling chemical weapons. —— stockpiling. it is about 15 miles west of homs. the ministry of defence says it is believed to be in a bursar populated area, minimising the potential for civilian casualties, which as we have heard is one of the aims of this operation, clearly targeting chemical weapons capabilities of syria and seeking to minimise any civilian casualties. —— sparsely

populated area. indeed, many people who opposed military action say that it doesn't matter how smart the bombs are, people will still die, and the last thing the syrians need is more conflict? that's right. i think that would have weighed heavily on the minds of those planning this operation. the ministry of defence says a lot of effort went into targeting or profiling this target, to ensure the aims and goals of the operation, to destroy the chemical weapons, were achieved without causing unnecessary civilian casualties. of course, the cold light of day might reveal that thatis cold light of day might reveal that that is different. at the moment they believe it was a successful operation to target this facility westhoff homs. looking at the reuters news agency, syrian state tv as saying that a scientific research facility in damascus was targeted and attacked. —— is seen. i suppose this is more of the same, they are

targeting perhaps where these chemical weapons are being made, stored, and from where they are just repeated? absolutely right. a science research facility could be somewhere where chemical weapons are researched and stored and investigated. it is difficult. one wouldn't necessarily be surprised to hear the syrians claimed that it is a civilian research facility which has been hit. we know from people on the ground that there have been several large and loud explosions in and around damascus. the french, british and american authorities are claiming they are targeting chemical weapons plants and army bases, particularly associated with the syrian regime. it is clear they are not attempting to hit any locations that are not part of the syrian military capability. then, thank you. —— ben. max abrams is an assistant professor of political science in boston. we spoke a few

days ago, when the alleged chemical weapons attack happened. of course, there was a strike on targets within syria, and at that point, up until now, we still don't know who carried out that attack, although i believe these suspicions are with israel. right now, is this diplomacy failing, or how would you describe it, the fact that these airstrikes are happening now? well, it is certainly an about—face for the trump administration. not long ago, president trump said he wanted to get out of syria, that the mission in syria was very limited, that it was about combating islamic state. and that essentially, islamic state had imploded in syria. then, over the past week, we have heard all

sorts of things coming out of the white house that a response was imminent. so really, i've been on standby for the past three days also thinking that the strikes could happen at any time. and apparently tonight is the night. and from the looks of it, it looks like the military response is significant. this is not the same as last year when the us launched 58 or 59 tomahawk cruise missiles. this looks much more substantial. i have seen on twitter some verified users with whom i interact, saying that these are the guest explosions they have ever seen around damascus. “— biggest. so not only is there more us firepower, but this time it is a multilateral operation, joined with the french and the british. furthermore, if you take trump's comments at their word, he said this would be at "sustained assault". ——

be a. so you get the impression we are talking about something quite substantial, when you put it all together. these attacks are being carried out, but at the same time, the russians are very sceptical. some people are describing these as conspiracy theories, what they are talking about when it comes to who carried out the chemical weapons attack. but this is all happening without any sense of russia? well, i mean, what russia decides to do may be the single most important variable in this entire military intervention. so right now, the us and russia are completely on opposite sides in syria. russia has been an indispensable backer of the assad regime since the beginning of 2015. and now the united states is going directly at the assad regime,

taking on his military assets, research assets, airports, probably anything military that they can hit without encroaching too much on where we believe the russians are, while simon tony eastley avoiding so—called collateral damage by killing civilians. —— simultaneously avoiding. this is a very fine line to walk, because donald trump wants to walk, because donald trump wants to be strong enough to show that he is not barack obama, that he is enforcing this redline. but he doesn't want to go too far because that risk substantial escalation with the russians, and frankly it is one of the reasons why i have not been enthusiastic about a us military intervention. i don't really see what the war aims are. i am not entirely sure what we are doing now, what is the purpose is,

and when exactly this sustained assault is going to end. this is very much a protracted conflict. it isa very much a protracted conflict. it is a civil war with many international parties which has taken the lives of about half a million people. and the reality is, these military strikes, it is not going to save syrians. it may change the tide, but not necessarily for the tide, but not necessarily for the better. if, for example, the assad regime is weakened, it is possible that would create a power vacuum possible that would create a power vacuum notjust possible that would create a power vacuum not just for jihadists, possible that would create a power vacuum notjust forjihadists, but it could actually influence in russian and iranian power. because they are of course allies with the side. so i do have a lot of concerns about this mission. 0k, max. i am sure we will come back to you in the coming hours. this is a joint operation by the us, the uk and france. prime minister theresa may

hasissued france. prime minister theresa may has issued this statement. this evening i have authorised rajesh armed forces to conduct co—ordinated and targeted strikes, to degrade the syrian regime's chemical weapons capability and to deter their use. —— british armed forces. we are acting together with our american and french allies. in douma, last saturday, a chemical weapons attack killed up to 75 people. including young children. in circumstances of pure horror. the fact of this attack should surprise no one. the syrian regime has a history of using chemical weapons against its own people, in the most cruel and warrant way. — — people, in the most cruel and warrant way. —— and abhorrent. and a significant body of information, including intelligence, indicates the syrian regime is responsible for

this latest attack. this persistent pattern of behaviour must be stopped. notjust to protect innocent people in syria from the horrific deaths and casualties caused by chemical weapons, but also because we cannot allow the erosion of the international norm that prevents the use of these weapons. we have sought to use every possible diplomatic channel to achieve this. but our efforts have been repeatedly thwarted. even this week, the russians vetoed a resolution at the un security council which would have established an independent investigation into the douma attack. so there is no practical alternative to the use of force to degrade and deter the use of chemical weapons by the syrian regime. this is not about

intervening ina the syrian regime. this is not about intervening in a civil war. it is not about regime change. it is about a limited and targeted strike that does not further escalate tensions in this region and that does everything possible to prevent civilian casualties. and while this action is specifically about deterring the syrian regime, it will also send a clear signal to anyone else who believes they can use chemical weapons with impunity. at this time, my thoughts are with our brave jewish servicemen and women and our french and american partners. —— british servicemen and women. who are carrying out their duty with the greatest confessional is. -- duty with the greatest confessional is. —— professionalism. the speed with which we are acting as essential in cooperating with our partners to alleviate further

humanitarian suffering and to maintain the vital security of our operations. this is the first time as prime minister that i have had to ta ke as prime minister that i have had to take the decision to commit our armed forces in combat. and it is not a decision i have taken lightly. i have done so because ijudge this action to be and written's national interest. —— in britain's. we cannot allow the use of chemical weapons to become normalised, within syria, on the streets of the uk, or anywhere else in our world. we would have preferred an alternative path. but on this occasion there is none. history teaches us that the international community must defend the global rules and standards that keep us all safe. that is what our country has always done. and what we

will continue to do. that was the british prime minister, theresa may, on the uk's decision to join american and french airstrikes on syria. you are watching bbc news. the breaking news here is that the item states, france and the uk have taken the decision to strike syria using airstrikes based on the chemical weapons attack which happened last week. —— in the united states. we can go live now to the pentagon where they are about to issue a statement. good evening, ladies and gentlemen. as the world knows the syrian people have suffered terribly under that prolonged brutality of the assad regime. on april seven the regime decided to again defy the