advisor alexander nekrassov and bronwen maddox of the institute for government, former the foreign editor of the times newspaper. welcome to you all. as we go to air, the us, uk and france have hit multiple government sites in syria in overnight strikes — in response to the apparent use of chemical weapons on the residents of douma, near damascus. the us defence secretary james mattis called the action a "one—time shot" — the administration stressing this is not about regime change. the british prime minister theresa may said the action sends a clear signal to anyone else who believes they can use chemical weapons with impunity. syria described the attacks as illegal and doomed to fail — its ally russia called them an act of aggression. henry — this is fire and forget? it is certainly being portrayed as a

one—off strike by the pentagon chiefs in the usa. jim matters is saying it is pinpointed at nuclear weapon facilities and that it was a proportionate response to what we saw. we now proportionate response to what we saw. we noinm was one of the voices within this administration trying to bring back donald trump from a more bellicose age. his streets earlier were more extreme, butjim mattis has brought him back. a one—off strike is a one—off strike until the next time. certainly, donald trump has made it a more open—ended thing. if the accounts are to be believed that there have been multiple chemical attacks and there will be another one, we will have to see if there's going to be another one—off strike. have to see if there's going to be another one-off strike. the us is in

concert with london and paris. yes, very much led by the us, but emanuel macron has been energetic, saying we wa nt macron has been energetic, saying we want tojoin in on macron has been energetic, saying we want to join in on this. macron has been energetic, saying we want tojoin in on this. theresa may after calculation did join in. the british part sounds of it is small. healy stories of former selves out ofa healy stories of former selves out of a hundred at it, but a symbolic and important gesture of support. yes, and we will talk leads about the fact that the british parliament is not sitting yet, which throws up domestic issues. i believe it is symbolic. it did not achieve a lot, very little. president assad emerged very little. president assad emerged very strong. his base of support is much stronger now. 100 missiles were actually fired at syria or syria targets. 70 of them were shot down

by missiles from syria and russia. they promised us able punish the russian and the iranians, but i believe it has completely backfired. i believe assad is in a very strong position now. you say you don't know what it has achieved. in terms of these specific strikes overnight friday to saturday, theresa may and others have been clear is about sending out a signal that the use of chemical weapons is a parliament and must not be repeated. would the three nations involved there not see that success is the result and other chemical weapons use? that success is the result and other chemical weapons use ?|i that success is the result and other chemical weapons use? i believe there are opposing voices in the american administration. many people believe this kind of strike is illegal. it was not under the umbrella of the united nations. and also, until now, we do not know

whether chemical weapons were used and if it was used, and we have proof? the defence minister of the united states said two days ago we don't have clear—cut evidence that these weapons were used. he said we have indication on social media, and also some media, that these chemical weapons we re also some media, that these chemical weapons were used and by assad. he saying social media. america, the strongest power on earth. which has about 18 intelligence service organisations, relying on social media. that is what he said. now, he didn't say that. it is on record. check your facts. you talking about what is a success in this and you're

implying that success would be regime change. no one has said that. first of all, i think the inspectors from the international chemical watchdog were supposed to start looking for evidence today. there are staff are there now. i hear echoes of iraq and libya. they don't wait for evidence, the attack. for many people, this is sort of a guilty verdict from them, because it didn't wait for the evidence. it's not that that isn't any evidence, liver samples taken on the site. the inspectors could have done it on monday. if they came back and said yes, we found evidence. the russians and the others are saying that is no chemical weapon. it and the others are saying that is no chemicalweapon. it has and the others are saying that is no chemical weapon. it has not been used at all. but the rescue workers on the site are seeing there is and it is not clear that the agency can

get there. they cannot be trusted. we should have waited for the inspectors. why do we wait and trusted expert on the field. that is one issue. the biggest issue, total disrespect to the united nations, total. but undermines the united nations once again, that they have no ability, not only to prevent conflicts, but no ability in the last minute to do something to stop and and negotiate something. again they will have a security council meeting, posturing, how dare you, who cares? you're right that the united nations is proving itself not to be particularly take, effect. this attack is one more evidence of that, but the attack has come from

more than one side. because the system doesn't work. when there are members with permanent beetles, then the system is broken. the bit that the system is broken. the bit that the us and the uk and the us could afford to get approved investigation in there and that those inspectors and make a decision about whether chemical weapons were used, that was vetoed by russia. there was enormous support, there were 12 members of the security council in agreement. and russia had almost no support for its rival one. russia had almost no support within the security council. we will come back to the broader thoughts on what it might achieve a little bit later on. i want to touch somewhat domestic players well, because of course so much focus on

syria, but bronwyn and many viewers will know that relations between london and moscow specifically have been particularly difficult for the last few weeks since the salisbury ‘s poisoning. it was interesting listening to theresa may's news conference in london when she was asked how much of this is about the use of chemical weapons and steady and how much is about sending a message to russia because of salisbury? your thoughts about the british domestic situation as well? she putjust one phrase of her formal statement before she started answering questions and she didn't even mention salisbury. she said, we don't want it to become acceptable for chemical weapons to be used anywhere, including on the streets of britain. i think the british government feels it has taken this action because it wants to reassert the red lines about the unacceptable use the red lines about the unacceptable use of these weapons. yes, relations have been very bad, i think that's

an understatement, in the past six weeks, and they're not about to get warmer. but she had got already a response to that from coordinated sanctions from many countries against certain individuals in russia, so it's notjust that. and all of this happening when the british parliament is in recess, is on easter break, due back on monday afternoon. to what extent does that play into the timing? is it going to bea play into the timing? is it going to be a difficult monday for the prime minister? yes, for the best of reasons, that parliament should take any prime minister to task on taking this kind of action. she is entitled legally, there is no question of that, to go ahead and launch military action without parliament backing. but there is a convention. a fairly recent convention. is an interesting question about whether the leader of the government wants to set that aside. i think she could make a case for this, saying, there

are times when speed is necessary and whenl are times when speed is necessary and when i simply think that this should be done. many people think she would have won a vote in parliament. i was given a pass on that one, going ahead without parliament, but she's absolutely rightly going to have to defend the action in front of parliament and to the british public, with balls said only 22% of his aborted this. she should recall the parliament and discuss this matter. we remember and even tony blair, he went to the parliament with his famous speech, talking about the war than giving the reason, looking for support of the reason, looking for support of the people in the parliament. but theresa may now is taking an actor for without going back to the parliament. and there are some senior british politicians particularly labour who have been broadly making that point. in terms of the salisbury poisoning, how on earth to relations improve between

london and moscow? first of all, i find it remarkable that that is an attempt to link syria and salisbury. this is absolutely remarkable. that is no connection and that is no proof about the use... the point is about the use of chemical weapons anybody in the world. i understand. it is completely to different subjects and they have no connection at all. in salisbury, just like on syria, that is no proof at the moment. all these accusations, russia, nobody has proven anything. russia is not mentioned, a sort of substances of in america. americans have the biggest arsenal of chemical weapons. this is nothing to do with these things together. relations between britain and russia, i don't think they will improve. i actually expect

they will improve. i actually expect the british side to continue this pressure. i look at the hysteria in the media and i am quite surprised to see what the british media is doing, because it's so well organised anti—russian campaign. you can say to me that in the free press, every paper writes exactly the same thing in exactly the same words. i am sorry, but this is government propaganda. two people nearly died, extremely seriously ill and their or pcw... when there was no proof, nobody even knew who this man was what happened. this was immediate. glassware i would expect the prime minister to say we have to investigate, find the proof for evidence that nobody waited for, no one. it started an all—out attack on russia without any evidence at all. and by the way,

this report your questioning, russia is not mentioned in it. and the nerve agent doesn't even exist. some we re nerve agent doesn't even exist. some were 20 or 30 years ago, that nerve agent means absolutely nothing.“ he was shot by a gun, are we good to see the same reaction? if it was determined it was state action from another nation, absolutely. 150 diplomats would be kicked out? but in terms of diplomatic relations, we touched on london and moscow and hendry, your thoughts about the trump administration. we have the extra certain something up with donald trump and members of his team being under investigation, with the idea being that the russian state ordered interference in our

elections, so that is providing this undercurrent of what is happening right now, which makes the situation even more unpredictable, because you have donald trump, who one hand and seemed very friendly to the russians and on the other hand is being investigated. added to his volatile personality, i think we have an explosive situation. i am worried that the russian ambassador to the united states said that this attack would be a personal insult to president britain. so how they are going to convert this to any action. until now, we hadn't heard of russian reaction. what they will say. a lot of people say now, why didn't the russians defender ally, the syrian president? why didn't they react? they have a very sophisticated anti—missiles equipments. 400 missiles which can

shoot down the warplanes and tomahawk missiles. why don't they useit? tomahawk missiles. why don't they use it? because they don't want war. very possibly. they have all said they don't want war theyjust want to send a signal to president assad about chemical weapons. no to send a signal to president assad about chemicalweapons. no russian installation is attacked, but the russian missiles were used by the syrians. you want russia to be dragged into a war with america. what are you saying? gentlemen, let's return to syria. as promised, we do want to move on to sit and its future, because and ipc was going motz of disagreements about lots of things, but everyone involved says

categorically this is not about regime change, this is truly about the use of chemical weapons, therefore we all sits in a situation where syria has had six or seven yea rs of where syria has had six or seven years of bloody civil war, so many people displaced and killed, how do we get to brass tacks and pick that country up? how does that war over end, ever? how do we reach a weekend of diplomatic situation? stop military intervention in this country, to leave people alone. seven years of military of military intervention. president trump said we spent £70 billion on the war in syria. why did he spend that amount of money and what is the outcome. he said he spent $7 trillion in the middle east. we have got death and

destruction. who destroyed the middle east. nobody is giving a solution. what is the solution? there is geneva talks, outlets us that there and the superpowers should agree to stop this and try and reach a solution. and to say to the saudi allies and the other allies, stop pouring money and supporting these organisations.” allies, stop pouring money and supporting these organisations. i am glad you mentioned geneva. bronwyn, is that any prospect something could come out of geneva? people talk for yea rs come out of geneva? people talk for years about reaching a diplomatic solution for syria and people are still talking? i hear what barry says about trying to get other countries which are using this as a pi’oxy countries which are using this as a proxy to pull out. you're absolutely

right to mention saudi arabia and iran, which are very invested in this. this is one which the us and britain and france have little parts are played, because russia has been shaping this for the past for five years. so has iraq. the key players in the geneva talks on what is happening in syria. i don't see them getting anywhere with this. we have to hope they have some talks, but this is russia's one to steer. the overall calculus has not changed in matters that the regime of assad has the upper hand. that's what's happening. since the fall of aleppo, it has been assad was like game to play. he has been winning with the backing of russia and iran. it's not about winning through diplomatic

means but by the war. everybody says that assad is winning. well why not just start negotiations on the premises that he is winning. why strive to interfere when he was winning, then suddenly we have the strikes and then again it stars a what can russia do? where is russia's responsibility and influence on this? first of all, russia is talking to all the key regional players, because if all the key regional players do not stop meddling in syria, nothing will happen, nothing. it will continue on and on and on. donald trump will say, we're pulling out and suddenly some rebels also lets buy chemical weapons and then it's all over again. there has to be an understanding through the regional key players in something as we done. and big ones like america

and others, becoming as well. i personally think that israel has a lot to play here. hugely important nation has got channels of communication to everyone. so there are very important in this game and i think the russians have a very good understanding. that is a possibility. but if we had these provocations continuing, and strikes coming from all over the place, it will be a never—ending war. but the strikes are results of the use of chemical weapons, so we risk getting into a circular argument here. let me put it that way. we tried seven years to topple assad by military means. they failed, completely failed. assad is there to stay, the saudis said he's there to

stay. let us find other options. let us stay. let us find other options. let us deal this. now north korea is a nuclear power, we have to deal with it, we have to talk to them. why don't we use the same style? why don't we use the same style? why don't we use the same style? why don't we talk to assad? why do we try to look for a peaceful solution to the problem? the military solution didn't work. the other thing is chemical weapons, they told us thing is chemical weapons, they told us they managed to destroy assad's arsenal of chemical weapons. but what happens if these chemical weapons leaked, how many people are going to be killed by this? are we trying to solve a problem with the bigger problem? i thought there was an agreement in 2013 at stockpiles would be eradicated and russia was a guarantor to that. but russia is saying there's chemical weapons in assad's hands. nothing at all. all

of them destroyed completely. i don't we take the russian word seriously? because it isn't what appears to be happening on the ground. we have many reports, including photographs, saying a lot of people seem to have died from claudine and possibly a nerve agent. in douma, that is no proof at all. by in douma, that is no proof at all. by the way, the footage of those victims on,, has spoken to chemical experts, they say it is an obvious fake, because all the rules of engagement with chemical weapons are broken in the footage. there's no reason to fake it. excuse me, but thatis reason to fake it. excuse me, but that is a reason to fake it. alexander, we have discussed that. barry, you talked about talking to

at that, having more talks with nasa. the broker is that? how does that come about? the united nations can do that. for the last step in years, we have had only war and bombing. this kind of thing, it didn't work. so why don't we doctor people ? thing, it didn't work. so why don't we doctor people? why president trump would like to talk to the leader of north korea. why? he doesn't do the same with assad, for example. if you got guaranteed that he would stay in power, he wouldn't be executed or depose from power. if we do that, maybe he will listen. we tried war and military intervention, it didn't work. let us try another style. briefly, we have to accept

the situation there in the middle east. we have to find use for the middle east and we have to remember, we intervene to libya, that what happened. intervening in iraq, but what is happening. intervening in syria, what is happening. it is time to use a different style, and time to use a different style, and time to respect the people from that part of the world. we have had enough wars. we have had enough distractions. but there is no system of security internationally. the united nations does not work. alexander, would we must leave it there. much more passionate debate this time next week. thanks for being with us. goodbye. things are looking brighter and

former as the weekend begins, but tomorrow, mean moving northwards. make the most of what will be a mainly dry start of the weekend. as the weekend goes on, the wind picks up, especially in western parts. wetter weather returns into tomorrow. but it is strive for most of us for the rest of today. a lot of us for the rest of today. a lot of cloud around, but some breaks allowing sunny spells to come through. that is an improvement in temperature, back into double figures, with the wind blowing offshore rather than coming in from the cold north sea. the grand national at aintree, top temperature of 14 or 15 degrees. writer breaks coming through those cloudy skies. there is a chance of a late shower. as the night goes on, cloud and outbreaks of rain pushing towards

northern ireland, wales and south—east england. north—east scotla nd south—east england. north—east scotland is close to freezing, and that could be fog patches developing in parts of eastern england as sunday begins. an area of low pressure coming our way, rain beating weather front coming northwards across the uk, with the strengthening wind, especially across the west. breezy on sunday, wendy the further west you are. rain, but it should amount to two match. scotland should stay dry behind that. there could be if you further heavy showers maybe with the rumble of thunder. with that likelihood of rain and cloud bees, temperatures will be lower. but as we go through the week ahead, temperatures are heading higher, particularly from midweek. some places will get a 24, most of us want. even into scotland, we will

see temperatures in some spots reaching above 20 celsius. from midweek, on monday, still a lot of cloud around, but monday night into tuesday, another area of rain for moving in to northern ireland and scotland. that's your latest forecast. enjoy your weekend. this is bbc news. i'm matthew price, live in beirut. britain, the us and france have bombed 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". we cannot allow the use of chemical wepaons to become normalised,