or anywhere else in our world. we're expecting the prime minister to give a press conference any minute now. syrian state television says government forces have shot down more than a dozen of the missiles — russia has warned there will be "consequences" good morning, it's saturday the 14th of april. also this morning — mike has all the sport. on the busiest day of the games so far, it is sprinting gold for

england. the men and women winning the four by 100 meter relay races. and nick has the weather. good morning, we are coming out of the grade today. something bright and warm for the start of the weekend. there will be some rain around tomorrow and then yes, we are still on for a proper warm up next week. all your weather coming up. good morning. our main story. in the early hours of this morning, britain launched a joint air strike with the united states and france against syria in response to the suspected chemical weapons attack in eastern ghouta a week ago. three locations were targetted — in the capital of damascus, as well as two places near the city of homs. russia has warned there will be consequences for the air strikes, while the syrian government has described them as a flagrant violation of international law.

in a television broadcast from the white house, president trump described last week's alleged attack last saturday as the crimes of a monster, not the actions of a man. we are waiting for theresa may the prime minister to speak this morning. she gave a statement shortly after the operation took place in the early hours of the morning, two o'clock, just explaining why the action had been taken. we explaining why the action had been ta ken. we have explaining why the action had been taken. we have had lots of political reaction as well in response to this, because it had not been put through parliament. we have been talking to the snp this morning. and theresa may —— jeremy corbyn has said theresa may should notjust have followed donald trump's lead, she should have put this to a parliamentary debate or vote before beginning the action. that is the

situation in downing street. theresa may said last night that these air strikes were the only practicable solution, that this had to happen, that there was no alternative to this use of force. she has also been stressing that this was not about regime change. a lot of the language which have come from the british government, french government and american government in the last few hours has been stressing that these we re hours has been stressing that these were carefully coordinated forensic targeted attacks on suspected chemical weapons plant, rather than anywhere where civilians might have been. ben ando has more. with afterburners glowing, and loaded with storm shadow cruise missiles, four raf tornadoes take to the sky as britain's contribution to raids overnight in response to syria's alleged use of chemical weapons. planes and missiles from france and the usjoined the raid. explosions were seen across damascus, ast he syrians launched their own defence rockets. this is not about intervening

in the civil war. it is not about regime change. it is about a limited and targeted strike that does not further escalate tensions in the region, and that does everything possible to prevent civilian casualties. russia's us ambassador writing: a pre—designed scenario is being implemented, again we are being threatened. we warn such actions will not be left without consequences. un secretary generaljens stoltenberg tweeted: those using chemical weapons had to be held accountable. the foreign secretary wrote that the world was united in disgust at the use of chemical weapons especially against civilians. there was defiance on the streets of damascus this morning, but the aim of the strikes was to get rid of bashar al—assad's illegal chemical weapons, not his regime. of course, the targets of these

strikes are syria, not regime change is. we have seen pictures of the president bashar al—assad. the latest footage appears to show him arriving for work. those pictures are the only ones filmed this morning, we understand, and the pictures were sent with a caption saying: the morning of resilience. the message is clearly, life goes on, business as usual. while we wait for the light statement from theresa may in downing street, we can show you pictures from the raf. these have come into the bbc in the last hour or so they show the aircraft taking off from cyprus and then landing again. we understand that the missiles that they launched were storm shadow missiles. the mod stressing that they were launched at a military facility, a former missile base we understand, about 15

miles west of the syrian city of homs, where the uk government and french and american governments are believing that chemical weapon precursors had been stockpiled. they say that is in breach of syria's obligations under the chemical weapons convention. the statements weapons convention. the statements we are getting, the stressed state m e nts we are getting, the stressed statements from all three governments involved in this series ofair governments involved in this series of air strikes, is talking about this being carefully coordinated and about very careful scientific analysis going on beforehand to make sure they were getting the right targets at the right place and time. while we are waiting for theresa may to speak from downing street, while we are waiting for theresa may to speakfrom downing street, we while we are waiting for theresa may to speak from downing street, we can talk to our political editor norman smith who is outside where the press conference is taking place. apologies in advance if ijump over you. we are getting theresa may

arriving. we will come back to norman for some analysis. here is theresa may. conducted, coordinated and targeted strikes to degrade the syrian regime's chemical weapons capability and deterred their use. the uk's part, for raf tornado gr four launched storm shadow missiles ata four launched storm shadow missiles at a military facility west of homs, where the regime is assessed to keep chemical weapons in breach of syria's obligations under the chemical weapons convention. while the full assessment of the strike is ongoing, we are confident of its success. ongoing, we are confident of its success. let me set out why we have taken this action. last saturday, up to 75 people, including young children were killed in a despicable and barbaric attack in douma, with

as many as 500 further casualties. we have worked with our allies to establish what happened, and all the indications are, that this was a weapons chemical attack. we have seen the harrowing images of men, women and children lying dead with foa m women and children lying dead with foam in their mouths. these were innocent families, who at the time this chemical weapon was unleashed, where seeking shelter underground in basements. first—hand accounts from ngos and aid workers have detailed the most horrific suffering, including burns to the eyes, suffocation and skin discolouration, with a chlorine like odour surrounding the victims. and the world health organisation has received response that hundreds of patients arrived at syrian health facilities on saturday night with signs and symptoms consistent with exposure to toxic chemicals. we are

also clear about who was responsible for this atrocity. a significant body of information including intelligence, indicates the syrian regime is responsible for this latest attack. i cannot tell you everything, but let me give you an example of some of the evidence which leads us to this conclusion. open source accounts allege that a barrel from was used to deliver the chemicals. multiple open source reports claim that a regime helicopter was observed above the city of douma on the evening of the 7th of april. the opposition does not operate helicopters or use barrel bombs. and reliable intelligence indicates that syrian military officials, coordinated what appears to be the use of chlorine in douma on the 7th of april. no other group could have carried out this attack. indeed, daesh does not even have a presence in douma. and the

fa ct of have a presence in douma. and the fact of this attack should surprise no one. we know that the syrian regime has an utterly apparent record of using chemical weapons against its own people. on the 21st of august 2013, over 800 people were killed and thousands more injured in a chemical attack also in boot. there were 1a further smaller scale attacks prior to that summer. on the 11th of april last year, the syrian regime used sarin against its people, killing around 100 with a further 500 casualties. based on the regime's persistent pattern of behaviour, and the cumulative analysis of specific incidents, we judge it highly likely both that the syrian regime has continued to use chemical weapons since then, and will continue to do so. this must be stopped. we have sought to do so

using every possible diplomatic channel, but our efforts have been repeatedly thwarted, both on the ground and in the united nations. following the sarin attack in eastern damascus back in august 2013, the syrian regime committed to dismantle its chemical weapons programme, and russia promised to ensure that syria did this, overseen by the organisation for the prohibition of chemical weapons. but these commitments have not been met. a recent report from the organisation for the prohibition of chemical weapons has said that syria's declaration of its form a chemical weapons programme is incomplete. this indicates that it continues to retain undeclared stocks of nerve agent or precursor chemicals and is likely to be continuing with some chemical weapons production. the opcw inspectors have investigated previous attacks, and on four occasions decided that the regime

was indeed responsible. and on each occasion, when we have seen every sign of chemical weapons being used, any attempt to hold the perpetrators to account has been blocked by russia at the un security council, with six such vetoes since the start of 2017. just this week, the russians vetoed a draft resolution that would have established an independent investigation into this latest attack, even making the grotesque and absurd claim that it was staged by britain. so we have no choice but to conclude that diplomatic action on its own would not be any more effective in the future than it has been in the past. over the last week, the uk government has been working intensively with our international partners, to build the evidence picture, and to consider what action we need to take and prevent and deter future humanitarian catastrophes, caused by chemical weapons attacks. when the cabinet

met on thursday, we considered the advice of the attorney general, the national security adviser, and the chief of the defence staff, and we we re chief of the defence staff, and we were updated on the latest assessment and intelligence picture. and based on this advice, we agreed that it was both right and legal to ta ke that it was both right and legal to take military action, together with our closest allies, to alleviate further humanitarian suffering, by degrading the syrian regime's chemical weapons capability, and deterring their use. this was not about interfering with the civil war, and it was not about regime change. as i discussed with president trump and president macron, it was a limited, targeted and effective strike, with clear boundaries, that expressly sought to avoid escalation and did everything possible to prevent syrian casualties. together, we have hit a specific and limited set of targets. they were a chemical weapons storage

and production facility, a keeper michael weapons research centre, and a military bunker involved in chemical weapons attacks. hitting these targets with the force that we have deployed will significantly degrade the syrian regime's ability to research, develop and deploy chemical weapons. a year ago after the atrocity, the us conducted a strike on the airfield from which the attack took place, but assad and his regime have not stopped their use of chemical weapons. so last that's strikes by the us, the uk and france were significantly larger than the us action year ago, and specifically designed to have a greater impact on the regime's capability and willingness to use chemical weapons. and this collective action sends a clear

message that the international community will not stand by and tolerate the use of chemical weapons. i also want to be clear that this military action to deter the use of chemical weapons does not stand alone. we must remain committed to resolving the conflict at large. the best hope for the syrian people remained a political solution. we need all partners, especially the regime at its backers, to enable humanitarian access to those in desperate need, and the uk will continue to strive for both. but the strikes are about deterring the barbaric use of chemical weapons in syria and beyond. and so to achieve this, there must also be a wider diplomatic effort, including the full range of political and economic levers, to strengthen the global norms prohibiting the use of chemical weapons, which have stood for nearly a century. although of a much lower order of magnitude, the use of a nerve agent on the streets of the uk in recent weeks is part of

a pattern of disregard for these norms. so 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. there is no graver decision for a prime minister than to commit our forces to combat. and this is the first time that i have had to do so. as always, they have had to do so. as always, they have served our country with the greatest professionalism and bravery, and we owe them a huge debt of gratitude. we would have preferred an alternative path, but on this occasion, there is none. we cannot allow the use of chemical weapons to become normalised, either within syria, on the streets of the uk or elsewhere. we must reinstate the global consensus, that chemical weapons cannot be used. this action

is absolutely in britain's national interest. the lesson of history is when the global rules and standards keep us safe come under threat, we must take a stand and defend them. that is what our country has always done, and that is what we will continue to do. i will take a number of questions. start with laura. thank you, prime minister, laura kuenssberg, bbc news. your logic is chemical attacks must not go unpunished, will you do the same again, if president assad does the same again, as you have suggested he has, and do you feel you have the public‘s consent, given that you have not even consulted mps in parliament? as i said in my statement, the purpose of the action

that took place last night, was to degrade and deterred the capability and willingness of the syrian regime to use chemical weapons. as i'll so said, obviously, a full assessment has not yet been completed, but we believe the action was successful. but the syrian regime should be under no doubt of our resolve in relation to this matter of the use of chemical weapons. and i have taken this decision, because i believe it is the right thing to do. i believe it is in our national interest, but i believe it is also important for the international community to be very clear about this issue, that we have seen people appearing to think that they can use chemical weapons with impunity, and we must restore the position that as isaid we must restore the position that as i said has existed for nearly a century, that the use of chemical weapons is illegal, it is banned and weapons is illegal, it is banned and we cannot accept it. tim? thank you,

prime minister, tim shipman from the sunday times. you him tim at odds the end of your statement about possible further wider action against supporters of the regime, can you explain why you have not yet taken action against russian money in london in the same way that the united states has, and on a linked point, we appear to be united states has, and on a linked point, we appearto be in united states has, and on a linked point, we appear to be in a propaganda war with the russians, why have no minister 's propaganda war with the russians, why have no minister '5 been out explaining what you have been explained today, throughout a week in which the russian ambassador as been accusing written of culpability for the crimes you have addressed this evening? on the first point, as you know on the use of the nerve agent on the streets of salisbury, we are looking at every aspect of the action that can be taken. we do in general work against illicit finances, against criminal finances here in the uk, and we will continue

to do so. you say that no minister has been out over the past week, i have given two television interviews over the past week, in which i have set out the need for action, and the need for us to restore the international norm of the recognition that chemical weapons should not be used. what i said in those interviews was that we were working with our international partners and allies, to ascertain, make the fullest possible assessment of what happened on the ground and then to ascertain what action was necessary. we have done that and the action we saw last night into the early hours of this morning, was the result of that work. adam. sam—macro prime minister, i wonder if you could explain a little more your decision and you're thinking not thinking prior approval debate on parliament on this decision, because as you know, jeremy corbyn and on the other side, kenneth clarke have both said that they feel that should

have ta ken place both said that they feel that should have taken place and there seems to be feeling abroad that tony blair is set a precedent back in 2003? as i have just set a precedent back in 2003? as i havejust said, i believe set a precedent back in 2003? as i have just said, i believe this action is necessary, i believe it is the right thing for us today. we have been working with our allies and partners over the week, first to make the fullest possible assessment of what happened on the ground and then to consider what action was necessary , then to consider what action was necessary, and then to do that in a timely fashion so that we could act with sufficient understanding of what happened on the ground and proper planning of any action, but to do so ina proper planning of any action, but to do so in a timescale that gave a very clear message to the regime. and it was also important, and i believe it is important, as we are sending, it is the gravest decision that a prime minister kante, is to send our service personnel into action, into combat. when we do

that, we owe it to them that we as far as possible protect their safety and security. and for operational security reasons, it is right that we have acted in the way that we did, properly planned this, says what happened on the ground, properly plan it and act on a timescale that is right to protect operational security and give a very clear message to the regime. robert? you explicitly linked the overnight action to the poisonings in salisbury, was the overnight action just about assad, or was it explicitly a warning to russia as well? the secretary—general is warning that the cold war is back, and he is fearful we don't have the institutional structures to contain it. how do we restore a sense of

calm and security? first of all, i referred to what happened in salisbury because it was the use of a chemical weapon, a nerve agent on the streets of the united kingdom. the action that took place last night was an action which was focused on degrading and deterring the operational capability and the willingness of the syrian regime, to continue to use chemical weapons. as isaid, continue to use chemical weapons. as i said, there have been many insta nces i said, there have been many instances when we have seen them using chemical weapons. but i believe it should also be a message to others that the international community will not stand by and allow chemical weapons to be used with impunity. we have, for nearly a century now, had a general understanding under the chemical weapons convention, that chemical weapons convention, that chemical weapons were illegal, that their use was banned. we have in recent times all too often seen chemical weapons being used. i think it is right that the international community has come

together, and said that we will not accept this and give a very clear message that we want to re—establish the international norm that chemical weapons are banned and should not be used. yes? if chemical weapons are indeed used again in syria, will the united kingdom take part in more targeted strikes, and since if it is in the coming weeks, parliament will no longer be in recess, will you feel a big pressure to actually ask for that green light, and how important is it to you that president macron is alongside and very much participating in this operation? how would you characterise the franco british entente about this operation? first of all, on the parliament rig front,

andi of all, on the parliament rig front, and i apologise i should have made reference to this, i will be in parliament on monday to make a statement to parliament and give parliamentarians the opportunity to question me about this. i believe it was right to take the action that we have done in the timing that we have done, as i have indicated, in relation to assessment planning and operational security. and it was to send a very clear message about the use of these chemical weapons. i believe the action taken will have significantly degraded the capability of the syrian regime to use chemical weapons. we want to deter their willingness to use chemical weapons but they should be in no doubt of our resolve, and i believe that as an international resolve on these issues, to ensure that we do return to the situation, where it is accepted that the use of chemical weapons is illegal, is banned, they should not be used. i think obviously this has been a

tripartite operation with the united states, with france and the united kingdom. you asked specifically about the franco british relationship. i think we have a great close relationship on security and defence matters. that was enhanced in the summit that we had earlier this year. we have been over recent yea rs earlier this year. we have been over recent years working increasingly closely together on these defence matters. inaudible if there are more chemical weapons attacks in syria, will you authorise and instruct the raf to carry out targeted strikes? i said, in relation to this, i will be going to parliament and we will be making a statement in parliament. on the wider issue, i did address the wider issue. this was a limited and targeted strike that took place last

lap, ora targeted strike that took place last lap, or a series of strikes that took place last night by the three partners, but nobody should be in any doubt of our resolve on this issue, which is to ensure that we see a return to that international norm on the prohibition of the use of chemical weapons. yes. thank you, joe watts, the independent. the syrian civil war has seen a huge displacement of people from the middle east to the west. i'm just wondering if you think your action today, and the threat of further action from the west will exacerbate that and cause more refugees to come to the west, and if you can tell us what extra planning, extractions you will be taking to address that point, to ease the pressure on nations and help the refugees themselves? you are right to say that as a result of what has been taking place in syria over the last few years, seven years or so, we have seen a large number of people displaced within syria and a large

number of refugees from syria displaced both to countries in the region and further afield. and we have been receiving a number of syrian refugees in the uk ourselves. our focus has always been on support for refugees in the region, with considerable support to countries which have been providing refuge for them. obviously, the lebanon, jordan and turkey are the three countries which have particularly been providing a refuge for them. the purpose of this action is to prevent further humanitarian suffering. i think nobody can have been anything but appalled at the scene is that we saw and have read about from the attack that took place in douma, and it is right, i believe, that the international community has acted to give that very clear message about that use of chemical weapons. prime minister, are you concerned that you perhaps do not have the support of

the british people for this action. polling has shown it is around a fifth of people who support further action in syria, and what is your message to people who are uneasy about the action you have taken? as isaid,| about the action you have taken? as i said, i have taken this decision, because i believe it is the right thing to do. i think my message to people about this is that this is about the use of chemical weapons. we have, for nearly 100 years now, had a generally accepted position in the international community, because chemical weapons are illegal, their use is illegal, they are banned, and that has generally been accepted. we have seen that international norm being raided. it has been eroded in a number of ways. we have seen a nerve agent used on the streets of the city here in the uk. but we have seen the city here in the uk. but we have seen the syrian regime continue in to use chemical weapons, despite the fa ct to use chemical weapons, despite the fact that after august 2013 they said they were dismantling their

chemical weapons and russia guaranteed that that was taking place. that commitment has not been met. and so i think it is important that for the alleviation of humanitarian suffering in syria, but also if we stand back and look at this more widely, i think these in all our interests that we with we restored the international norm on the prohibition of the use of chemical weapons. glen owen, the prohibition of the use of chemicalweapons. glen owen, mail on sunday. how much did you agonise about this decision, did it keep you awake at night? there is no greater decision that a prime minister can ta ke decision that a prime minister can take them to send service personnel into combat and it is a decision that i have not taken lightly. as you know, there have been a number of discussions here with the

national security council and cabinet and discussion with our american and french allies on this, but at the end of the day, i felt it was the right thing to do precisely because we have seen this growing use of chemical weapons and i think that we must say it must stop and it is in all our interests to ensure that the use of chemical weapons stops and it's in the interest of all our futures that the use of chemical weapons stop. in the front row. . obviously there has been no parliamentary approval for this action for reasons of timing apart from anything else, but when parliament resumes next week, do you intend to try to get parliament as a whole to back your strategy, which clearly you are opening the door to possible further action from what you say? we push for a vote to get

parliament behind you? as i say, and as you have picked up on in your question, it was a decision taken for operational reasons after the fullest assessment and planning and i believe it's the right thing to do, but we will, of course, the first opportunity when parliament the six —— resits, i will take the views of parliamentarians. i will be very clear, as i have been this morning and with others that this is not about action to intervene in the civil war, it's not about regime change, it is about the use of chemical weapons. it's a limited and targeted set of strikes that have taken place to degrade and deter the capability to use chemical weapons. on the second row here. during your

many statements you have repeatedly talked about the victims of the douma incident. have you considered orare douma incident. have you considered or are you considering to have some of the victims have the same kind of ca re of the victims have the same kind of care that the skripals hats? —— had? will you enlarge your coalition. on the first point, one of the issues we have as a united kingdom together with other international parties had concern for is the ability to access and provide the support necessary to victims, those who have been suffering from the humanitarian catastrophe that has been the use of

chemical weapons, but more generally in syria. we've made a number of attem pts in syria. we've made a number of atte m pts to in syria. we've made a number of attempts to the united nations and other ways to ensure proper humanitarian access so they can be provided with a proper medical care and we will continue to push for that humanitarian access so that those who are innocent victims can be provided with the support that they need. as i have said, it's important that this was a collective action taken together with the uk, france and the united states. other international leaders have come out following the action. the intent of the international community now must be to make every effort through a variety of channels to ensure we can get this very clear message about the use of chemical weapons. that is what this action has been about and thatis what this action has been about and that is what we will continue to

press on in a whole variety of ways. just behind you. thank you prime minister. because of this continuing and heightening tension between the we st and heightening tension between the west and russia, some people started to call this situation a new cold war. what would you do or could you do in order not to let this military action lead to a new cold war. this action lead to a new cold war. this action has been focused on the activities of the syrian regime. this leave the syrian regime has been backed by russia. this action has been about chemical weapons. there was also the wider issue of restoring peace and stability and security in syria and we will continue to work with all partners and, of course, russia's involvement in that will be a part of that to

bring about that security and peaceful syria for the future and a political solution for syria for the future. simon israelfrom channel political solution for syria for the future. simon israel from channel 4 news. given the failure as you have said in your statement of all diplomatic efforts so far, what is the plan following the strikes? sorry, what is the plan? what is your plan following the strikes? as i have said, diplomatic efforts in itself has not had the impact that we wished it would have. we have now taken military action and alongside that we will renew diplomatic effo rts that we will renew diplomatic efforts as well and some of those obviously will continue to be through the united nations to press for proper investigatory capability, opportunities for proper investigation and are holding to account of those who use these chemical weapons. the aim of this is to degrade operational capability of

the syrian regime and deter their willingness to use chemical weapons, but there is the wider issue of overall the message for the international community regarding chemical weapons and we will continue to pursue that to the united nations and otherfora. continue to pursue that to the united nations and other fora. were there any communications with the russian government or military about possible military action before it was taken? this is not something that the united kingdom has been involved in. as you will be aware, this is a complicated picture in terms of operations that take place in syria. foran terms of operations that take place in syria. for an proper planning was put in place before the strikes were undertaken to ensure that we could mitigate and minimise the impact on

civilians and ensure that the strikes were absolutely targeted at theiraim, strikes were absolutely targeted at their aim, which was the chemical weapons capability of the syrian regime. the prime minister theresa may making a statement on the coordinated air strikes on syria with the uk, france and the united states, speaking at downing street. the bbc‘s assistant political editor norman smith joins us from outside 10 downing street. norman, focusing almost as much on russia as she was on syria. norman, focusing almost as much on russia as she was on syrialj thought that was perhaps the most interesting part of the press conference. mrs may linking lost my‘s attack to the nerve agent poisoning of the skripals in salisbury. saying it was designed to send a broader message regarding the use of chemical weapons. in other

words, it was designed to degrade and deter president assad's capability to use chemical weapons, but also a warning to the russians following their use of chemical weapons in salisbury. there will be those who suspect that as a broadening of the ambitions underlying this attack because theresa may has been careful to stress its limited, targeted and particular focus on president assad's ability to launch these kinds of attacks. we were told that the attacks last night was sited on a chemical weapons research base, a storage facility and a military bunker, but the inclusion of salisbury does broaden out the aims and ambitions of the attack last night. we did get a clear indication from the prime minister that there would not be a retrospective commons

vote to approve the attack last night. she says she will go to the commons on monday and mps could question her. that's different to voting in favour for question her. that's different to voting in favourfor or question her. that's different to voting in favour for or against. question her. that's different to voting in favourfor or against. no signs of a vote. it's possible the opposition parties might be able to manufacture a vote, but it's clear to me that the government are not intending to have a vote and i expect there will be a row about that as well. jeremy corbyn wanted a debate, some sort of parliamentary approval before any military action. he has said that this decision to launch air strikes was legally questionable. i guess that is where the debate will go now? yes, and it's interesting that all the parties are taking up positions. the dup, on which theresa may depends on for a parliamentary majority have

issued a statement backing her. i am sure that a number of conservatives are and happy about the attacks last night. things could be fraught and that's perhaps why the government is unwilling to go down that particular road. she suggests things have to be donein road. she suggests things have to be done in this timescale because it needed to be linked to the attacks last week in douma. i suspect many mps will not think it sufficient simply for mrs may to come to parliament and said that the arguments we have just heard from her. thank you very much. let's get the reaction

of sir vince cable, the leader of the liberal democrats, who is in our london newsroom. thank you very much for holding on to speak to us. would you like to give your reaction to the prime minister's press conference? first of all, just to acknowledge that british service personnel are involved and are at risk. i'm disappointed that the parliament mr —— the prime minister has not sought parliamentary approval. there has to bea parliamentary approval. there has to be a proper debate and vote when we reconvened. i'm concerned this morning about the confused objectives. america has said that it's is one shot, but the press conference a minute ago has

indicated that there was a possibility of continuing strikes if this problem continues. of course the other overarching strategic consideration is that we are very much on the coat—tails of an erratic american president. the things he has been saying this morning have been fairly emollient about rebuilding relationships with russia and maybe iran. he'll probably say something different this afternoon. we do have common ground with the prime minister bird that it is clear that the syrian government have use chemical weapons and the russian propaganda to try to defuse that argument, i don't buy it for a moment. let me pick up on the points you have made. let's talk about this action having gone ahead without going through parliament. the prime minister was asked about this in the press co nfe re nce minister was asked about this in the press conference and of course parliament are on recess for the easter break, reconvening on monday.

theresa may said she will take questions on monday. she said this was the right time and it's not about action to interview in the civil war and regime change, it's about stopping the use of chemical weapons. that's a justification for it. that's as far as it goes is fine. it's a clear rationale and accept that will stop they are not trying to change the regime, it's not a proxy war with russia which is very specifically about chemical weapons and i accept that, but not convening parliament is not convincing. they got the cabinet together, why could they not get parliament together? however, that is water under the bridge, the important issue is that on monday the government has to set out its case, answer critical questions and seek approval. that is an important stage and i regret that the prime

minister was not willing to commit to that. just referring to your point about the objectives, whites gone ahead and what the objectives are, the prime minister said it was not about regime change, but this action lays down clear boundaries and the international community must also give a clear message, but this is not an intense of escalation. do you agree with that attitude towards this action? yes. as far as it goes, that i am sure is right, but i repeat what i said a moment ago. as i understood it, the united states defence secretary said it was a one—off action which somewhat implies that it's a gesture. the prime minister's statement this morning suggests that if we have continuing evidence that they retain chemical weapons or if they use them again, we go back and we go back. it's not clear at all whether this is to be continuing action or simply

a one—off, and we need to be very clear what the objectives. i do accept the prime minister has said this is exclusively about chemical weapons and i'm sure that's absolutely right, but we would still like clarity about what the objectives are. is it a continuing ora objectives are. is it a continuing or a one—off? objectives are. is it a continuing or a one-off? in terms of coming on the coat—tails of the united states, of course france was part of this, a close ally of the united kingdom, although i would like you to reflect on comments by the un secretary general who has called for restraint from countries that could escalate the situation in syria. that is right. one of the more penetrating questions at the press conference a few moments ago was whether the russians have been tipped off, whether they have been a private conversation to make sure they were not involved in this action. i suspect that happened. it happened last time, when trump sent missiles

into syria, and it's important that we don't get drawn into a wider conflict with russia or iran. in fa ct conflict with russia or iran. in fact the iranians element of this is more worrying. i will keep referring to the press conference because it's the first time we have heard anything since action was taken, she said there was no graver decision a prime minister could take as she hasn't taken it likely. what will you be asking her in parliament on monday? i do respect that weight of responsibility and she is utterly sincere in her comments. it is weighty and bitches service personnel are at risk. —— and british service personnel are at risk. it will be very much in her interest that she gets the country

behind her, we build a consensus and in order to do that she had to persuade parliament and the best way to do that is to put it to a vote. knowing what you know and presumably every more evidence that will come on monday, what would be your vote if it was put to a vote? i'm not ruling out support, what i want to hear more. there are things that have not yet been clarified. over the next 48 hours it will become much clearer what has happened. i have an open mind, i'm not dogmatic, i don't have a prior view that we should automatically stay out of any conflict or we should rush in and stop bombing. i want to hear the evidence. the obligation is now on the prime minister to take the country with her. so vince cable, thank you for talking to us. —— sir vince cable. we will be getting more reaction to

the air strikes in syria, but let's have a look at the weather. brighter spells coming through. the winds will pick up in western parts of rain moving northwards across the uk tomorrow. for the rest of today, a good deal of clouds, but there are brea ks a good deal of clouds, but there are breaks in the cloud compared with recent days. there is more chance that we will see sunshine from time to time, but not all the time. the threat of some outbreaks of rainfall shetlands, and isolated shower here and there, but the majority of us will stay dry. temperatures are

higher, most notably around the north sea coast. for the grand national at aintree, a little bit of sunshine coming through the cloud at times. it will be a drier picture thanit times. it will be a drier picture than it was yesterday with 14 of 15 degrees as the top temperature. a chance of some late showers as we go into the first part of the night. clear spells, apache fop, increasing cloud across northern ireland and south—west england with outbreaks of rain. temperatures holding out, but chilly across north—east scotland. low pressure will bring this weather from our way. it's not particularly strong, so it should not be that wet underneath it, but the wind will pick up. there will be outbreaks of rain, but after a pick up. there will be outbreaks of

rain, but aftera mainly pick up. there will be outbreaks of rain, but after a mainly dry day today, some rain. more than scotland staying dry. behind the rain, short sharp showers for northern ireland. it will turn breezy in western parts and temperatures will come down compared to today. temperatures will head up particularly from midweek next week as we see widespread spring warmth coming our way. temperatures in the high teens and low 20s. even as high as 24 degrees celsius. the warmest days of the spring so far, particularly wednesday, thursday and friday. let's remind you of what has been happening. at 2 o'clock this morning,

president trump announced the air strikes in a television broadcast from the white house — and directly addressed last week's suspected chemical attack in douma. less than a week ago, a yougov survey found public appetite for military action in syria was limited. let's get more on that and the details of the operation with former nato commander rear admiral chris parry and yougov pollster chris curtis. good morning to both of you. chris, this poll was done before we heard about the military action. i guess once military action happens, public opinion can change. there have been big shifts. we've seen it last time round when we were carrying out air strikes against isis. we also saw that with iraq. it reacts to events and how the government puts forward the case. it also reacts to how

leading politicians react. as things stand, around one in five members of the public supported military action. 43% were opposed. in the press co nfe re nce , action. 43% were opposed. in the press conference, theresa may said it was in britain's national interest to be involved in these air strikes on syria. she was trying to tie together what is happening in syria and the use of chemical weapons with the use of chemical weapons with the use of chemical weapons on the streets of salisbury and put it together. does that argument holds sway with public opinion? she was asked about our poll specifically and she said, i think it is the correct thing to do. she needs to bring the public along with her. one of the big areas which we have had to look at is the idea

ofa we have had to look at is the idea of a parliamentary vote and the majority of the public, including a majority of the public, including a majority of the public, including a majority of conservative supporters believe that there should have been a parliamentary vote. not doing that could have an effect on these numbers. how does this work in terms of when these discussions are happening and operational agenda is being set, how much does the public vote coming this or does it simply become an operations discussion. what we do next? what normally happens is that the government takes executive decisions on behalf of the public. it's only recently we've gone to parliament for these decisions. as a military man gets in the way because not only are your plans talked about and it gives a clue to the enemy of the opponent about what you are going to do, it slows up any action. so you can't ta ke slows up any action. so you can't take the action at a time when it is most advantageous. in this case,

there was already campaign approval passed by parliament and in a dynamic situation is only right the executive takes executive decisions about when to use what is essentially a small, low risk a force, just enough to get the attention of the regime, but not enough to escalate it further. what we see pictures like this of the strikes that happened overnight and uc that our aeroplanes and tornadoes have been used, we note the personnel have come back home safely and we are all grateful like that, but do pictures like this make an impact? we are three days away from theresa may, but parliament to a nswer theresa may, but parliament to answer questions. they probably will. this is the first time after the decision that theresa may has set out her case for the strikes. parliament has been in recess, so we haven't had a lot of politics. we

haven't had a lot of politics. we haven't had a lot of agenda setting, so haven't had a lot of agenda setting, so this is the first time theresa may has properly laid out the case for military strikes. if you look back at conflicts all the way to fit non—, as long as objectives are seen to be achieved in campaigns, the public generally behind the public. when doesn't happen, the public won't get in behind the government. as long as the government and said, we did what we set out to do, we've contained the conflict and it won't go further and is the regime uses chemicals again, it should be ok. jeremy corbyn had warned against military action, talking about the importance of talking and diplomacy over the last few days. he said that he thinks it's a legally questionable decision to carry out these air strikes. again, it depends which perspective you look at. we

have a right to defend ourselves. if people think it is the thin end of the chemical wedge, we have to take early action, it's as simple as that. i know from my own career that there are irreconcilable people in there are irreconcilable people in the world that won't talk. the balkans for example, milos vich would not talk until clinton decided that cruise missiles might make an come to the table. it's a calibrated use of force. something had to be done, they've done it and now it's up done, they've done it and now it's up to them. thank you for your analysis. more detail on the attacks are more reaction to it on the days ahead. just to recap, britain, france and the us have carried out air strikes in syria in reaction to the chemical weapons attack in douma. they were designed to decrease the

syrian regime's ability to carry out further attacks. more on that coming up further attacks. more on that coming up on the bbc news channel. we will see you tomorrow. thank you for joining us. this is bbc news. i'm matthew price, live in beirut. britain, the us and france have hit multiple government targets against president assad in syria. three alleged chemical sites were targeted in an overnight operation — the biggest show of force against the man donald trump described as a "monster". 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. four british tornado jets were involved in the operation — theresa may said there was "no practicable alternative to the use of force".