president trump on authorising with the uk and france airstrikes on syria following an alleged chemical weapons attack by the syrian government. welcome to bbc news, broadcasting to viewers in north america and around the globe. our top stories: president trump has announced that airstrikes have been launched against syria. the purpose of our actions tonight is to establish a strong deterrent against the production, spread and use of chemical weapons. the us military says strikes were conducted against three sites involved in the research, production and use of chemical weapons. the united states has a vital national interest in averting a worsening catastrophe in syria, and specifically deterring the use and proliferation of chemical weapons. syrian state television claims 13 missiles were shot down but there's been no confirmation of that. hello and welcome to the programmes.

the us, france and britain have carried out air strikes on three sites in syria in response to the alleged chemical weapons attack last week. multiple explosions have been heard in damascus and the city of homs. in a statement announcing the attacks, president trump said they were precision strikes on targets associated with the syrian government's chemical weapons capabilities. chris buckler is in washington. chris, it sounds like donald trump and the administration had given this quite a lot of thought and there were many deliberations before taking this decision? yeah, president trump spoke and as he

spoke and gave that speech, missiles we re spoke and gave that speech, missiles were fired in syria. it was immediate. it was a very short and sustained series of strikes specifically targeting chemical weapons passivity is and also research labs, where they were being developed. —— weapons facilities. they have thought about this deeply. picking specific targets and they we re picking specific targets and they were at pains to point out they did this to limit any civilian casualties. within an hour, the pentagon were speaking and saying the strikes themselves were over. however, it was intended to send a message to bashar al—assad, a man who donald trump called a monster and a mass murderer and it was also intended to send a message notjust to him but also his allies, russia and iran. if you look at the speech he gave as the missiles were being fired it was clear, clear he was saying to them he was relying on their support and they should not be standing behind him, particularly

after those images that came out of douma of the alleged chemical attack. images of children, images of people lying dead after apparently, according to us officials, what seems to be chemical weapons. now, there have been some indications over the last couple of days that it may have been chlorine, it may have been an unspecified nerve agent, but what's been happening over the last couple of daysis happening over the last couple of days is we seen the uk, the us and france all come together to try to determine this was chemical weapons and there's been a change in the last 2a hours with the us specifically saying they had that evidence, and almost immediately we have seen these quick and sharp strikes. there's a question, though, about what happens next because although president trump in his speech said they were prepared to have a sustained response, it seems that won't just be have a sustained response, it seems that won'tjust be military, it could also be economic and diplomatic and for the moment it seems this military action is over. looking at events at the united

nations security council meeting earlier on friday, no consensus whatsoever between the united states and russia 7 no, and we're continuing to see some of that hardening of positions between russia and the us, even in the aftermath of these strikes. russia had warned there would be some type of retaliation if the us was to strike along with its ally, syria. certainly, there's been a tweet for example from the russian embassy in the us saying there may well be some consequences and that they had warned of that. what those consequences could be we simply do not know but it does give you a sense that there's a feeling on both that this action on the uk, us and france side was something that was neededin france side was something that was needed in response to what was described as a pattern of behaviour in terms of chemical weapons, but also an escalation of their use, which is how they regard douma. on the other side russia feels it was a

warranted action and they continue to push this line that what happened in douma has been fabricated, that it wasn't a proper attack, that syrian forces were not responsible. that of course is something that has been continued to be denied by the other side but it gives you the sense of the division between those in the west and syria and its backers, iran and russia. use a straight division but even considering what's happened in the last couple of weeks, the expulsion of the diplomats, this is appearing to be like any time you think there could be an improvement in relations with russia, things go downhill again —— you say straight division. it's worth remembering even with the expulsions and diplomatic sanctions that were taken, for example, over the last few weeks, and now into this attack, although other things have been mentioned, for example, the poisoning of sergei skripal and his daughter, yulia, in england, that's been mentioned at times but

actually in terms of the sanctions and expulsions, specifically america has mentioned time and again how russia uses its international influence, how it uses its international power and syria has been a key focus within that. i think this is going to remain a key source of tension between them. the un secretary general, of course, warned this had the potential of another cold war and certainly it does feel frosty between those nations. but, at the same time, if you look at the uk, the us and france and what they are saying, they are saying they are specifically reacting to what has happened inside syria and, of course, evidence is still being gathered. this weekend members of the opcw, the organisation for the prohibition of chemical weapons, they have experts there and they wa nt to they have experts there and they want to establish exactly what happened in douma. but i don't think we're going to see this going away in any sense just because these

military strikes have happened and ended. there will be pressure on syria and there will remain tension between those in the west, and russia, in particular. chris buckler in washington. retired lt colonel daniel davis is a seniorfellow at defense priorities and joins me from washington. thank you forjoining us, colonel davis. from what we understand, according to the defence secretary, jim mattis, i think he said three sites were targeted, is that enough to destroy syria's chemical weapons facilities7 no, absolutely not. i think that the attempt was, well, we can'tjust hit one site, like we did last april, because they have airfield back up and operational within 2a hours. especially because donald trump had said plenty of times we would have a

bigger response, that's why they expanded to three sites, but there's no way... whether there is a chemical weapons programme still active or not, whatever you want to do, three targets on such a short amount of time will not destroy any kind of capability. it will send a message that we're going to continue to attack but i bet what you're going to see is syria will do everything in their power to get whatever was hit reinstituted and rebuilt and back on the ground, whatever it was doing, to show their defiance i suspect. the big question is now what? we have struck this, but will that make bashar al—assad do something different? will it make russia back down? i think in the coming days we will see this hasn't been very effective to what we need to accomplish, and that remains to be seen what russia does do in response. anatoly antonov tonight said ina response. anatoly antonov tonight said in a release that they felt they are being threatened and that

we warn such actions will not be left without consequences and all responsibility rests with washington, london and paris. what does he mean? who knows and maybe they don't know yet but we will be watching for that. colonel davis, what was the point of the airstrike7 is it just bluster on what was the point of the airstrike7 is itjust bluster on the part of the west? that's a really good question i've been asking ever since these threats were made. what is the intent, what's the purpose, what's the strategy behind this? unless you, like, have a sustained, like, desert storm type massive aerial bombardment where you literally take out all the military capability, you're not going to be able to really impact what syria is able to do and if you do something small, like what it appears we have done... have we lost colonel davis7 i think we did just as it was getting interesting and he was in his

stride. that is a shame. let's return to the pentagon because a short time ago the us defence secretaryjim mattis spoke to the press about the operation. earlier today president trump directed the us military to conduct operations in continence with our allies to destroy the syrian regime's chemical weapons research development and production is capability. tonight, france, the united kingdom and the united states took decisive action to strike the syrian chemical weapons infrastructure. clearly the assad regime did not get the message. this time our allies... together we have sent a clear message to assad that this is not... must not perpetrate another chemical weapons attack, for which they will be held accountable. the 70 nations in the defeat isis coalition remain

committed to defeating isis in syria. the strike tonight separately demonstrates international resolve to prevent chemical weapons from being used on anyone under any circumstance in contravention of international law. i want to emphasise that these strikes are directed at the syrian regime. in conducting these strikes we have gone to great lengths to avoid civilian and foreign casualties. but it isa civilian and foreign casualties. but it is a time for all civilised nations to urgently unite in ending the syrian civil war by supporting the syrian civil war by supporting the united nations backed geneva peace process. in according with the chemical weapons convention prohibiting the use of such weapons, we urge responsible nations to condemn the assad regime and to join us condemn the assad regime and to join us in ourfirm resolve condemn the assad regime and to join us in our firm resolve to prevent chemical weapons from being used against white the retired

lieutenant—general daniel against white the retired lieutena nt—general daniel davidsson of the defence priorities... joins us of the defence priorities... joins us again tonight. we have this attack, this strike, but the end of the person who is the leader of syria and who is committing these alleged atrocities is bashar al—assad and he is still in office. it's like there is almost no point? i can't say that i disagree to strongly because again, you say you want a message to be sent, but he is still in charge so what secretary mattis just said about the intent, well, certainly russia doesn't angry that is the case because they don't even admit that there was a chemical attack by bashar al—assad so they are saying whatever your intent was, that's not us, we didn't do that so we're not going to... we get the message and do something different. he is still

in charge, they are still fighting a civil war and they still have battles against rebels so that will carry on. that's why i keep asking the question, what now and what was the question, what now and what was the intent? are not sure anything useful has been accomplished. there was a curious phrase he used, he talked about us baikal interests in destroying syrian assets and he even quoted something from the us constitutional law about article nine or something like that —— vital. explained that, it seems like he is having his cake and eating it? that's probably the biggest bone of contention i have because he was citing article two of the 1972 war powers act which he was saying gives authorisation to the president for a national security risk, it does not. the war powers act says the only time the president can order unilateral action is if the us is directly threatened and by any stretch that wasn't the case and that's why this is so important that the us congress is the only one with

authority to authorise these actions that don't represent an immediate threat to the country, so that is something we will have to grapple with because frankly congress isn't stepping up to their constitutional responsibilities. i suspect that in the coming days the legal basis for this airstrike is going to be something up for debate because if you remember the last time around when barack obama had his so—called red lines, which were crossed, and then he didn't act, he was worried about not having any legal backing from congress to act. that's why it is so important, you can't make threats that you can't back up, or that you can't back up legally. if the legal justification that you can't back up legally. if the legaljustification doesn't exist then you have to be really careful about what you're going to threaten because now if you make good on it then you might actually violate our own constitution, and there's nothing good about that. i think that's something that will be

looked at carefully in the coming days, what was the justification, even domesticly, forget internationally, because as your correspondent said at the beginning of this segment, the opcw is only just arriving and we still don't have conclusive evidence. it's crucial for our credibility and if we wa nt crucial for our credibility and if we want to stop chemical attacks and punish those responsible than we first need to make sure we know who did do it so we can hold the right party accountable. if it turns out that it wasn't the assad regime, imagine the problems we will have at that point. something else president trump said, you're talking about the opcw and going into syria to assess, what happened over the past few yea rs what happened over the past few years from the start of the civil war was that syria would give up its chemical weapons and russia would make sure that it has done so and donald trump accused russia of failing in its judy donald trump accused russia of failing in itsjudy to do that. donald trump accused russia of failing in its judy to do that. that

will be one of those things that he's set, she said. they will say that russia didn't do theirjob that russia will say that they did and they accomplished it, they don't haveit they accomplished it, they don't have it and that is why it wasn't the asaad regime because all of the weapons were ta ken the asaad regime because all of the weapons were taken out. until you egypt and independent people in there to find out, i don't know that you can really positively identify one way 01’ you can really positively identify one way or the other because if assad has weapons and he wants to hold onto them it be difficult to anybody doesn't have control of his regime to find out. that is why i really emphasising that we need to withdraw our forces from there and to contain the civil war within its boundaries and don't do anything that may spread beyond because if we get into a situation here where russia feels like they have to respond based on what we've done, you know, what are we going to do next7 you know, what are we going to do next? will we step up another level? i don't know what action they will ta ke i don't know what action they will take but a taking any chances the conflict either in a colder cold war 01’ conflict either in a colder cold war or if they should take any military

responses of their own, you know, the risk to our country and to the west and to great britain and to france is unnecessarily, it is unnecessarily raising. thank you so much. we appreciate that. this is a joint operation by the united states, france and the uk. britain ‘s prime minister theresa may has this statement. this evening, i have authorised british armed forces to conduct co—ordinated and targeted strikes to degrade the syrian regime's chemical weapons capability and deter their use. we are acting together with our american and french alliance. 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 abhorrent way. 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 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 british

servicemen and women and our french and american partners, who are carrying out their duty with the greatest professionalism. the speed with which we are acting is 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 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 in britain's national interest. we cannot allow the use of chemical weapons to become normalised, within syria, on the streets of the uk, or anywhere else in ourworld. 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 is the british prime minister theresa may on her decision to join france and the united states in air strikes against syria. daniel lipman is the co—author of the daily newsletter article playbook and is live from washington. thank you for joining us. this is a sort of serious political calculation that president trump has had to make, am i right? i think it is one that he has a lot of support from most americans. they see images of

innocent civilians dying in syria from this massive civil war from chemical weapons and they say america should do something. remember, president obama had the red line which syria crossed and there were no military consequences. so this is a rare issue in washington where trump seems to have had the support of most americans who think that it is a good idea to punish a rogue regime that violates these international norms. but in these international norms. but in the same vein, president trump was the same vein, president trump was the candidate who was talking about pulling out of middle east wars and not getting involved in the middle east. in 12— 18 months as president, he has carried out at least two air strikes in syria. yeah, and he talked about how he wants to leave syria even as recently as two weeks ago. so he has these shift in judgement which can feel like

american policy is in a web storm because you have one day at the white house him saying no more interventions are broad and then he is announcing these military strikes. i would say that he is not sending us ground troops in and a lot of middle eastern leaders who wa nt lot of middle eastern leaders who want asaad to go, they feel like this isn't enough. they are sick of the world basically waiting on the sidelines and not actually helping rebels achieve their goals of removing assad. this is one that comes at a time of great transition to the white house foreign policy team, the new national security adviserjohn bolton who i don't believe has been confirmed, mike pompeo who has joined the state department has not been confirmed either. how are they making these crucial decisions when everything is in such flux7 crucial decisions when everything is in such flux? and you have a lot of

the top deputies on the national security council who are leaving becausejohn security council who are leaving because john bolton security council who are leaving becausejohn bolton wants his own team. and you have to see more clashes going forward between bolton and pompeo anti—trump because alton and pompeo anti—trump because alton and pompeo anti—trump because alton and pompeo are much more hawkish in their views in foreign policy and intervening and donald trump is much more resistant to nationbuilding and sending troops to fight battles overseas and so you know, i think they didn't have a time of input into this policy because we have been waiting for this to happen, where this asaad regime uses chemical weapons and you want to lay down a marker butjohn bolton, it may surprise people, that he will try to restrain himself from watching a million wars as many people were worried about. this has

been a fairly significant week for president trump. because you have this air strikes and also kind of personal, potential personal legal issues as well dropping up, and i have seen conspiracy theories talking about the whole wagging the dog thing. i don't think that president trump is that conniving in that he would have staged a chemical wa rfa re that he would have staged a chemical warfare strike last weekend and then he knew that james comey‘s look cause coming out, so don't give in too much credit for that! iraq coincidences coming in life but he is putting pressure in the home front. my colleague at the new york times, maggie huberman, said this was the weekend that seems that trump is under the most amount of pressure since access hollywood, that tape came out, drink the height of the campaign with a lot of things breaking that hurt trump. so he meet

fire his deputy attorney—general next week. hisjob is on fire his deputy attorney—general next week. his job is on the line as we speak because of his participation in the robert mueller probe. in terms of how the president is perceived, whatever the president authorises military action, the ratings do well because they are seen as being strong —— whenever. ratings do well because they are seen as being strong —— wheneverlj don't expect him to gain a ton of approval points. he is pretty low in terms of having a general approval of about 42% which should be much higher because the economy is doing well. but i don't think there are a ton of americans who are anti—trump now receive the missile strikes tonight and say well, i like president trump now. people are hard on their positions of either supporting the president or opposing him. thank you, daniel, thank you for joining him. thank you, daniel, thank you forjoining us. russia has given its first response to these attacks. anatoly antonov, ambassador to the us, issued a statement saying:

just over two hours ago, president trump made the announcement that military action in syria had started when he addressed the nation from the white house. my my fellow americans, a short time ago i ordered the united states armed forces to launch precision 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 instead. following the horrors of world war i, a 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,