we that was the difference. we think that was the difference. we think that by doing this, this was very successful. and we are confident that we have significantly degraded his ability to ever use chemical weapons again. what kind of response should the assad regime from the us if they were to use chemical weapons again. it is important to remember that we had, that this represents three permanent members of the un security council. the uk and france are our oldest allies. this is about values. we did this because it is intolerable for any civilised nation to tolerate the use of chemical weapons. i have two, one follow up on michael's question for you general and on michael's question for you generaland a on michael's question for you general and a question for you. to press you on the chemical weapons programme. can you give us an idea of, was this, should... american

public understand that this is a minority of the existing chemical weapons programmes, or minority of the existing chemical weapons programmes, or is minority of the existing chemical weapons programmes, or is this more than half, can you give us a sense of scale of what these telesites represented —— three sites represented. and how long did the strike last, how many minutes or hours and can you comment on, put this in the context of the civil war, the us policy is not to get engaged in the civil war and we have this significant military response to chemical attacks that killed an estimated 45 people. at the same time the assad regime has used conventional means to attack women and children, civilians repeatedly using barrel bombs and other means, how should people understand the difference in the response to these

more isolated chemical attacks and the ongoing conventional attacks by the ongoing conventional attacks by the assad government on its own people. it is clear to even that the syrian people have suffered for too long. that ills is why we are behind the peace process. we encourage our allies to also help facilitate that conversation. we have a new un envoy. this is an opportunity to really put real steam behind the process. but our mission in syria remains the same — it is to defeat isis. it is not to be involved in the civil war. christina 7 isis. it is not to be involved in the civil war. christina? sorry. isis. it is not to be involved in the civilwar. christina? sorry. so your question, first we believe by hidden bars we have attacked the heart of the syrian chemical weapons programme. i'm not saying they won't be able to constitute it. but it has

dealt them a blow. how long did the attack last? an operation like this as many elements from a zero four hundred time on target, all our missiles impacted within a minute or two before that. several hours before you launch tankers and do a variety of things. probably a couple of hours before would be the period of hours before would be the period of maximum intensity of the mission. that is when your aircraft are getting to the point where they're going to release their missiles. the operation actually many hours before to get set up. christina. what would trigger another wave of coalition attacks? are we talking another chemical weapons attack or retaliation and do we expect any retaliation and do we expect any retaliation from the regime, from the russians or theis iranians. retaliation from the regime, from the russians or theis iraniansli cannot the russians or theis iranians.” cannot speculate what will happen. but i can tell you that this, we

took action, and what happens next is in, is the decision of assad. do we expect any retaliation.” is in, is the decision of assad. do we expect any retaliation. i can't speak to that, but i can tell you we're ready for it in the region and globally. we are on the balls of our feet and ready for anything. was this the least extensive of the options that were crafted. how many options that were crafted. how many options were put together and was this the one that would meet the least amount of damage. we can't comment on options we present to the president. that is a choice he makes. i will tell you of all the options carfully looked at ways to minimise damage, you balance minimise damage, you balance minimise collateral damage. these targets seemed to hit the sweet point. i what impact did the public

prelude have on this and maybe a 24 century body guard of lies, how impact did it have an launch of the aircraft or ships used. we are all focussed on the donald cook and that was not used. the truth is it had no effect. on military planning. david? i heard you say the strike put more stea m i heard you say the strike put more steam behind the peace process, how does this help bring peace to syria? the un, we have been clear about the fa ct the un, we have been clear about the fact that we support the un—backed geneva process. sochi has failed. our focus geneva process. sochi has failed. ourfocus remains geneva process. sochi has failed. our focus remains defeating geneva process. sochi has failed. ourfocus remains defeating isis. the demonstration of our allies,

france and the uk helping us, demonstrates that we are serious about the fact that chemical weapons use is intolerable, it is inexcusable. but we will remain committed to the i7—nation coalition to defeat isis. how does defending the use of chemical weapons affect the use of chemical weapons affect the outcome of the syrian civil war? it affects it by again demonstrating to the world that this is a heinous regime. this is a regime that murders its own people. daily. we, yesterday, with the help of our allies, addressed the fact that they continue to use chemical weapons against their own people. we continue to hope and urge and we are confident that the un process will move forward. but our mission

remains to defeat isis. there is still work to be done and we will do it. right here. iam still work to be done and we will do it. right here. i am going to ask three questions. first, were you ready yesterday to engage russian targets in case russia responded to that attack? second, you keep talking about the current syrian chemical programme, can you give us an idea about the size of this programme in comparison to what the regime had before dismantling it, and third, you talk about evidence of chemical weapons attack. we haven't seen any evidence really. that is what your saying. there is an organisation on the ground in syria and it will conduct an investigation, why didn't you wait for that investigation? let's remember opcw and others have been

blocked from tenner thing ghouta and douma. that is because of the assad regime. we need to remember that everything that's happening, with respect to the murder of these people, innocent people, is the responsibility of the assad regime. so we were very confident about the evidence that we had. and it was clear and the secretary said yesterday he was confident about the intelligence as well as the evidence. the two other questions on russia and the size of the... evidence. the two other questions on russia and the size of the. .. we have an active deacon flickion arrangement with russia. the size of the programme. you made lots of assessment, you have a good idea, in comparison to what the assad...”

would say there is still a residual element of mitt. —— it. i'm not going to say they can't conduct a chemical attack in the future, but i think they will think long after ha rd think they will think long after hard about it after last night. president trump tweeted mission accomplished, which has not born out when the phrase has been used. you have leapt the option open for future strikes, could you reconcile the three statements, mission accomplished and could be used in the future. if there are other strikes, does the secretary have to go to president trump or has he been delegated the authority to carey them out. last night operations were successful, we met or objectives. we hit the sites. the heart of the

chemical weapons programme. so it was mission accomplished. give me your second part. the authority's question. if there are future strikes does the same process go where you go to the pcc, what is the process now? as the secretary said, the president has the authority under article two to defend us interest and national interest and so i'm not going to speculate on anything that happens in the future. but he was full, this was a legitimate operation. ryan. general, did the chairman of the joint chiefs s did the chairman of the joint chiefs s communicate with the general in the hours leading up to strike. do you think it has changed the balance of the civil war, or is the assad regime maintaining its advantage?” say about the channels with the russian. it is a robust system that we have employed for some time. i

can't give you any more information ona can't give you any more information on a particular conversation that the chairman may or may not have had. what was the second part. the military balance of the civil war, do these strike affects that. our strikes were targeted to send a message about chemical weapons. i think they were successful.” message about chemical weapons. i think they were successful. i want to get someone who has not spoken. thank you. following up on the question, this question of mission accomplished, if the mission is to deter president assad from producing and spreading chemical weapons, isn't it impossible at this stage militarily to know whether that mission, as described, was accomplished? last night's operations were successful. we met all our objectives, we hit all our targets successfully. no aircrafts, allied aircrafts were engaged. it was a successful mission. what

happens next depends on what the the assad regime decides to do. over here? you said that you didn't observe any material effects of, on forces, can you describe any other effects, electromagnetic or cybereffects and have you observed any activity around remaining sites that you didn't strike that suggests an after action to hide or use chemical weapons in some other way? the syrian response was remarkably ineffective. it is probably the best answer i can give. they had no material impact on the strike. as i noted, they began to fire their missiles after the last impact of our weapon. to effect that we know at this time. finish your thought.

other activity around other sites, movement of weapons or removal of chemicals. ijust don't have that information right now. tom. you said we are confident about the evidence we are confident about the evidence we have. now, russia and syria denied any chemical weapons were used, why you wouldn't share your evidence, stevenson went to the un with the evidence of the russian build up in cuba. why wouldn't you do something similar. there is no doubts for us. why not share the evidence. a lot has to do with intelligence, i'm happy to show evidence if we can. we were confident about the decisions we made. i will take one more question. you have already spoken, come on, give someone else a chance. a couple of clarification points. general, you said i believe there is still an air defence package in operation now

in case there is potential for retaliation, how long do you intend to keep that package in the area specifically keeping an eye on if there is retaliation to this strike? during the strikes last year, a couple of them failed not because of interference, but theyjust failed. did any not make the target. none of our tomahawks experienced any problems. your last question, we keep dca over deployed forces in eastern syria, we have got aircraft there. as we open in time from the event going forward, the commander will readjust the air defence posture. at the moment it is robust. we will make adjustments based on the environment. lucas? the syrian government said they shot down over

a hundred tomahawks, are they lying. you did you deacon flibgted with the russians. you said you want to avoid conflict with syria, but you lobbed a couple of dozen tomahawks into the country. can you explain that? our mission remains to defeat isis. but assad's actions were beyond the pale. again, we will do our... we will and we are up supporting the envoy. we will continue to do that. because we want a diplomatic solution to the conflict. but civilised nations can't let what's happened in syria stand. so with that i'm going to... sorry. so you asked about this. the russians don't

have a veto on anything we do. that is probably the best way to describe it. we are not co—operating with them in syria. we don't want to get into a fight with them, the best way is to share certain information, carefully metered out by us and them. but we are not co—operating with them and they have no veto over what we do. but we owe it to our service men and women to do the best we can to simplify the environment in which we are going to fight to. the mechanisms allow us to do that. i can't help you with what the syrians are saying or not saying, what i'm telling you is what actually happened. as secretary said last night, the russian disinformation campaign has already begun. there has been a 2,000% increase in russian trolls in the last 24 hours. therefore, we will keep you all abreast of the facts moving forward. thank you. does this

operation have a name? you're watching special coverage on bbc news, this has been the first detailed ed briefing from the pentagon. we heard from the pentagon spokeswoman who said a clear message has been sent to president assad and she hopes he received it. he said every objective was achieved. general mckenzie we got details, 105 missiles were fired. even though there has been reports from syria that the air defences had works, the general said none of the missiles, none of the aircraft were engaged by syrian air defences. he said of the 40 missiles which had been fired

came after the attacks by the western aircraft. he pointed out that the russian air defences were not engaged and he was not sure they we re not engaged and he was not sure they were operating at the time. other points. here is our correspondent barbara plett who was watching this. let's move on to the politicians and there was difference cushion discussion about president trump saying mission accomplished, we heard this was a legitimate operation, what is being said in the united states by pundits and politicians, is there broad support orare politicians, is there broad support or are questions being asked? well, there is i think broad support for there is i think broad support for the idea of a limited strike to target the chemical weapons programme, to send a clear and narrow message that chemical weapons use cannot be tolerated and the united states should act. there is a

broad consensus in washington that president obama in 2013 when he said he would carry out a military operation if there was a chemical weapons attack and then didn't, because congress didn't support him, but also because they got that agreement to dismantle the chemical weapons programme. that is seen as a mistake here broadly speaking. in the sense that mr trump did take action when he said he would, i think that that is well received. but beyond that there are questions. they do break down on party lines, but not only. one question is, what is your wider strategy if you're having a strike about chemical weapons, where does that fit in the wider strategy with syria which has been incoherent and confusing. there isa been incoherent and confusing. there is a push back from some of the democrats about the authorisation for the strike. so the argument of the administration is that this lawful under article two of the

constitution which allows the president to take actions in the national security interest and he has presented it as has the pentagon that its in the national security interest to deter chemical weapons, because it is banned by an international treaty. but some democrats say it is not legal and you should consult with congress and get authorisation to use force. so that, there is a debate about that. thank you. let's cross to moscow. i'm joined now from moscow via webcam by andrey korobkov, a professor of political science at the university of tennessee and an expert of the russian council on international affairs. you hear some of the the pentagon briefings what is your initial

reaction that the pentagon believes wit auz perfect operation? you talk about russia, their perception is that they're targeted strikes that, we re that they're targeted strikes that, were deliberately avoiding inflicting losses on either population. everything was done to avoid the direct clash with the russian military over there. so everything went from their point of view as it was planned and the perception is that to a large extent it was down by trump for internal reasons. for reasons related to the electoral campaign. although it has to be said that president macron of france and prime minister may of britain made it clear it is about

respecting and safeguarding international norms regarding the prevention of the use of chemical weapons. yes. but i'm talking here about the russian reaction and there was a lot of very angry talk before the strikes coming from members of the strikes coming from members of the duma and from talk shows and promising very angry response in case any soviet or any sorry russian objects, military objects or personnel would be hit. so all this follows the salisbury story and especially the sanctions that you have inflicted and carry heavy losses on the russian elite and much heavier than they expected. so even

the syrian strike rate is second to the syrian strike rate is second to the effect of the sanctions from the russian political and business as well. the impression in russia that it is russia that is being targeted. we heard a statement by the russian am bassador to washington saying this act would not be without consequences. what do you think will happen next will there be a response or will russia try to move on to improve relations and address other issues? there will be some cosmetic response to not lose face. but they would prefer to forget about it. if the west would be willing to kind of stop there, russia would also, well, maybe... would make some very symbolic step, but would not engage in any large scale action. russian

ships were withdrawn from the ports right before the strike. so it looks like the military did expect the strike. but they expected that it would go exactly the way it went. limited in scale. very targeted. and avoiding any clash with russian interests. and it looks that there was some kind of information exchange between the russian and the western military command, whether they would recognise it or not. but it is seems there was some degree of co—operation. it is seems there was some degree of co-operation. what would you see as the next stage. the other message from this pentagon briefing is the united states would like this to move towards an acceleration of a negotiated settlement to the war in syria. in other words political talks. would that also be russia's

aim? yes it would be russia's aim. but in russian perception, assad has toa but in russian perception, assad has to a large extent won the civil war, or russia has won the military operation. therefore negotiations have to take place, but they have to ta ke have to take place, but they have to take place on the basis of this new real #2i. -- reality. do you think bashar al—assad is, is russia willing to put pressure on bashar al—assad and his government to agree toa al—assad and his government to agree to a genuine political solution? yes, i think they would be willing to negotiate assad leaving this time and hearing some kind of coalition government. but at the same time, the guarantee is that assad's allies... we have to leave it there.

that brings to an end our live coverage from beirut. that was our correspondent live from beirut. more coming up over the afternoon here on bbc news. now we can take you over to the weather. it felt strange today, actually seeing some spring, warm sunny weather. the sunshine has been extensive today. most of us have been enjoying that. glorious earlier in newquay. this picture does tell the story of the weather, with sunshine across england and wales. there has been more cloud across northern ireland, central and southern scotland and north—east england. but what little cloud that we have seen today will melt away

with clear skies. the clear skies will be with us for rest of the night. the exception is the south west with a front moving into cornwall by the end of the night, threatening rain. temperatures around five degrees. colder in the north and east of scotland. on sunday, we see a different day, thanks to this low pressure. you see how the cloud spirals around, that is what we see with old areas of —— low pressure. tomorrow will be a cloudy day with rain developing and cooler and windy in western parts. here is the detail. the rain coming along in bands in england and wales. we will see two or three down pours, followed by sunshine. the rain threatens central and southern scotla nd threatens central and southern scotland and northern ireland. the

north of scotland staying dry. a cooler dry. but we are not going to see a return to the unsettled weather. looking ahead to next week, the weather will become drier and increasingly warm as high pressure builds. how high can it get? highs probably wednesday and thursday of around 25 degrees for the north—west of land. but i think widely we will see temperatures in the high teens to low 20s in most parts. we will look at monday, it is not a bad day. england and wales having some sunshine. cloud will thicken in northern ireland and rain working in here. it will cloud overfor western scotla nd here. it will cloud overfor western scotland with the best of the sunshine for the north—east. temperatures not bad. 14 or 15 degrees. but we will see things warm up degrees. but we will see things warm up significantly as we head to the midweek with the temperatures surging up to 25 degrees in the warmest spots. something to look forward to next week then. mathis

this is bbc news. live in beirut. the headlines at 3pm... britain, the us and france have bombed three sites in syria. more than 100 missiles were fired in the joint action — targeting what they say are chemical weapons facilities. in the last hour the pentagon has said the operation against the syrian regime had successfully hit every target. the efforts by syria we re every target. the efforts by syria were largely ineffective and clearly risked their own people, based on their indiscriminate response. russia has condemned the attack