this is bbc world news. i'm tanya beckett. the un security councilfails to back a russian resolution condemning the us missile strikes on syria. the military action by the us, britain and france targeted three chemical weapons sites with more than 100 missiles. the us vice—president said the strikes sent a strong message to the syrian leader. there will be a price to pay if chemical weapons are used again against innocent men, women and children. but syria's president, bashar al—assad, said the air strikes made him more determined to defeat his opponents. and the united nations security council rejects a russian call to condemn the air strikes — the un secretary general says a political solution is needed. iurge i urge all members to show restraint in these dangerous circumstances and to avoid any acts that could escalate matters and worse the suffering of the syrian people.

hello and welcome to bbc world news. the un security council has failed to back a russian resolution condemning the us missile strikes on syria. the russian ambassador to the un, said there had been a blatant disregard for international law. britain and francejoined the us in the military action — in which more than 100 missiles were fired at military targets in syria. the pentagon said that the explosions hit a scientific research facility in the capital damascus, as well as two locations near the city of homs. president trump thanked his allies and said the strikes were ‘perfectly executed' — declaring ‘mission accomplished.‘ 0ur washington correspondentjon sopel has this report. from a french warship in the eastern mediterranean to a british raf base

in cyprus to the uss monterey in the red sea, days of planning was replaced by execution, with the bombing and missile strikes. the president said britain, france and the us had marshalled their "righteous power against barbarism and brutality." a short time ago, i ordered the united states armed forces to launch precision strikes on targets associated with the chemical weapons capabilities of syrian dictator bashar al—assad. and he singled out syria‘s two principal backers. to iran and to russia, i ask, what kind of nation wants to be associated with the mass murder of innocent men, women and children? the nations of the world can be judged by the friends they keep. in damascus last night, flashes, bangs and streaking

missiles lit the night sky. those launching the attack seemed as keen to define what this mission wasn‘t as what it was. 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. daylight reveals the extent of the destruction. this is all that‘s left of the scientific research centre near damascus, one of the targets that took the greatest pounding. at a pentagon briefing this morning, the defence chief said all targets had been hit with no casualties suffered. we are still conducting a more detailed damage assessment, the initial indications are that we accomplished our military objectives without interference from syria. i use three words to describe

this operation, precise, overwhelming and effective. but in damascus this morning, regime supporters were celebrating a success in repelling american aggression. perhaps more accurately, this strike was more limited than they‘d anticipated. from a government spokesman, defiance. translation: this aggression will only increase our determination to defend our sovereignty, national security and the security of our citizens. this apparently is president assad strolling to work today, although we don‘t see a close—up of his face. if he is able to walk tall, it‘s only because of the support he is receiving from the russians. today at the un they turned their fire on britain, france and the us. translation: the us and its allies continued to demonstrate blatant disregard for international law. they must be especially firm in protecting the un charter. in douma, the site of the chemical

weapons attack, the syrian army are in control and awaiting the weapons inspectors. the americans are saying it‘sjob done. but now the world waits to see if there will be retaliation or any further use of chemical weapons, because if there is then this will be far from over. jon sopel, bbc news, washington. the us vice president has been speaking about the missile strikes. he said the military action was successful and had severely affected the syrian regime‘s ability to carry out chemical weapons attacks last night the united states of america conducted a successful military strike on critical chemical weapons infrastructure in syria that has significantly degraded and crippled the ability of syria to conduct chemical weapons attacks and chemical weapons programme against innocent civilians. this was the morally right act to take and as i

spoke to the president this morning, we could not be more proud of our american forces and our allies who conducted this attack with such professionalism and brought about an extraordinary success. the president has also made it clear that the united states of america is prepared to sustain this effort to re—establish a deterrent framework that exists in order that the syrian regime and its patrons know that there will be a price to pay if chemical weapons are used again against innocent men, women and children. a short time ago i spoke to our correspondent

in washington, barbara plett—usher. i asked what the thinking was behind these strikes. yes, it is quite clear that the thinking behind the strikes was to make them. it is quite clear that the thinking behind the strikes was to make them limited, bearing that they are only targeted at chemical weapons facilities, to send a message to the regime that these of chemical weapons will not be tolerated and also to destroy president assad‘s it said it would cripple president assad‘s chemical weapons programme and they had struck at the heart of what the programme was, although they acknowledged there were still other facilities and it was still likely that he could use agents if he wanted to. but they sent the message, or they said if that was the case, then he should be prepared to perhaps be struck again.

and so that was the sustaining part of what president trump talked about in the campaign, to not only have a one—off, but to keep a close eye on how president assad if he uses this chemical weapons ability again. it is a change of thinking for donald trump. he has been reluctant to engage in this conflict. yes and no. last year when there was a chemical weapons attack he again fired missiles and was very angry about the attack itself and spoke emotionally about it and you had the same instinct and reaction from him this time. we understand he wanted a larger strike that did more damage to president assad‘s war machine. in that sense it is not a departure, but in the sense that he does not want to stay involved in syria in the longer term and put any resources into trying to shape the future of syria, that is a

departure. but i think he sees them as separate things. i think he sees the chemical weapons one thing and the rest of the conflict as another. meanwhile, the syrian government says it has now taken complete control of the former rebel—held enclave of eastern ghouta. addressing the un security council, the syrian ambassador to the un — basharjaafari — strongly condemned the actions of the us, britain and france. the syrian arab republic condemns this tripartite attack, which once again shows indisputably that they paid no attention to international law, even though they say they do, repeatedly. these countries have shown their conviction for the law of thejungle shown their conviction for the law of the jungle and the law of the strongest. that is the syrian

ambassador to the un. as we‘ve been hearing, the un security councilfailed to back russia‘s resolution calling for condemnation of those missile strikes. the russian ambassador, vassily nebenzia, even described the strikes as "hooliganism." with more on russia‘s perspective on the allied attack on targets in syria, here‘s our moscow correspondent, steve rosenberg. moscow is the biggest backer really of president assad and it is not surprising that the language coming out of moscow was pretty harsh and uncompromising, so we heard vladimir putin talking about an act of aggression having been committed. we heard the foreign minister saying that this attack was basically on lawful and unacceptable. we had a senator saying that america was behaving like a bully at school. the language was very tough. a lot of rhetoric but what there was not was this military response from russia, there was not retaliation and in fa ct there was not retaliation and in fact the russians went out of their

way make it clear that russian air defence systems in syria have not been used to target incoming missiles. it is clear that russia does not want to go to war with america over syria, but we were hearing about donald trump 0ther place red lights, the russians have read lines as well and moscow had made it clear, that if the lives of russian servicemen in syria were put in danger, then the russians would target us missiles and even launch sites. that is a great clear red line that the russians have laid down for now and for the future. nato allies have given theirfull support to the american—led strikes. the nato secretary general, jens stoltenberg, said the attacks hadn‘t solved all the problems related to chemical weapons in syria, but compared to the alternative, which was to do nothing, he said this was the best response. he was speaking to the bbc‘s adam fleming in brussels. we were briefed very thoroughly by the three allies, the united

kingdom, france and the united states, and we appreciate all the information they shared with us and we have no reason to doubt the findings and the assessments of these three allies. at the same time we know that the chemical attack that happened on the 7th of april happened in the area, douma, where the assad regime operates, supported by russia and iran. we also know that previously there have been independent investigators, international investigations, which have clearly attributed the use of chemical weapons to the assad regime, so they have used chemical weapons before. and we know for instance that the world health organisation has reported that they have seen people with symptoms consistent with the use of chemical weapons. on top of that we also note that we have a lot of independent, on top of that we also know that we have a lot of independent, open sources confirming the use

of chemical weapons in douma. was there one piece of evidence that really convinced you, that really swung it for you? it would be wrong if i went into the different elements, but it is the whole picture that the assad regime has been responsible for the use of chemical weapons before. that is a finding by an international independent investigation. the fact that operated in the area and the the fact that they operated in the area and the fact that there are many different and open sources confirming that chemical weapons were used. and then we also have to look at the alternative. to be silent, to do nothing, to accept the use of chemical weapons, that would be a very wrong message. because then chemical weapons can be used with impunity. i am now in brussels close to flanders fields where chemical weapons were used during the first world war and many soldiers were killed and since then we have had a ban on chemical weapons

and i think it is extremely important that 100 years after the first world war we do what ever we can to uphold the ban on chemical weapons. here in the uk, the opposition leader has called into question the legality of last night‘s airstrikes. the british prime minister has defended them on the grounds that they send a clear signal that the use of chemical weapons will not be tolerated. with more on the reaction here in the uk, here‘s our political editor, laura kuenssberg. 2am at home. 4am at the target. raf jets take off to strike at assad‘s regime. by 9am in number ten the prime minister emerged to explain her case. there is no graver decision for a prime minister than to commit our forces to combat. and this is the first

time that i‘ve had to do so. we cannot allow the use of chemical weapons to become normalised. either within syria, on the streets of the uk, or elsewhere. not just a punishment for president assad, but about a wider principle, too. this was not about interfering in a civil war, and it was not about regime change. it was a limited, targeted and effective strike with clear boundaries. 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 that when the global rules and standards that keep us safe come under threat we must take a stand and defend them. 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 you have not even

consulted mps in parliament? 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. ministers‘ legal advice justifies the strikes as an exceptional measure to alleviate humanitarian distress by degrading the syrian regime‘s chemical weapons capability and deterring future attacks. yet without explicit un backing, the labour leader believes the strikes might not be legal. the consequences of any country taking unilateral and action that has no legal base, it's an encouragement for others to do exactly the same and reduces our ability to complain when others do that. surely the united nations exists for a purpose. the prime minister will face questions from mps on monday, but no firm plans for a vote.

mps have been powerless all week to hold the government accountable on this, and for us to have to wait another two days after the event really is not good enough. there are major questions, major doubts. is this a one—off or is it a continuing operation? how much control do we have of what the americans are doing? we‘ve got a very erratic american president who changes his position from one day to the next. this was not intended to end the war in syria, not part of an effort to remove assad. but the prime minister wants these attacks to be seen as a clear and grave reprimand to a country suspected of using chemical weapons. an effort to force respect of the decades old rule that such weapons are illegal and must not be used. but while theresa may‘s decision to act was in her gift, what happens next may well not be. the prime minister may hope her decisions have

a straightforward outcome. but the political fall—out may not be clean. there‘s been little first hand reports from inside syria on the effect of the air strikes. but my cbs colleague, seth doan, in damascus has been to see one of the facilities that was hit. we were driving around that facility and trying to get in, talk to people, but we were unable to get in because of checkpoints and various television commitments, so we will go back later in the day. but we have seen images inside of the devastation and that building appears to be completely destroyed in the pictures that have been released on syrian television early this morning. but unbelievably the neighbours were relatively unharmed. people describe going to their windows and opening their windows so the windows would not burst, but watching this kind of display in the sky as we watched. it was interesting to listen

to president trump speak in one ear and looking out over this city watching anti—aircraft fire and also seeing or he hearing those air strikes hit their targets. and also seeing or hearing those air strikes hit their targets. pictures that were released this morning that were labelled from the syrian presidency that showed president bashir al—assad appearing unfazed walking into a building almost nonchalantly is the word that you used, obviously trying to paint an image of not being particularly bothered, not being deterred by these strikes. we have also heard spin from their opposition who have reportedly said that these strikes are just farce as long as president bashir al—assad stays in power. reportedly said that these strikes are just a farce as long as president bashir al—assad stays in power. we have also spoken to people on the streets and at the top levels of government. 0ne official in the syrian

government told me last night that syrians have been through so much, they have been fighting over the years and as we know for the last seven plus years in this most recent conflict, this senior official in assad‘s government said if there was only one syrian left that they will fight for syria until the last drop of blood. so certainly defiance on the streets and a defiant mood here in damascus today. so last night‘s strikes may appear to have been very clearly targeted — but they are being seen by some as a limited punishment on syria. so what impact will they have on syria‘s chemical weapons programme and what do they say about the strategy of america, britain and france? here‘s our diplomatic correspondent, james robbins. this is what provoked the strikes, last saturday‘s apparent gas attack on civilians in douma. britain, france and the united states are convinced this was the latest in a long line of assad‘s chemical attacks and had to be punished. so what was achieved? the strikes sent a deliberate, precise, if limited message

to president assad, "you are not the target — your chemical weapons programme is." the united states fired missiles from two warships and from the submarine uss john warner, plus in the air, two b—1 lancer bombers. the raf flew tornadoes from akrotiri in cyprus, staying out of syrian airspace to fire their storm shadow missiles. and france launched missiles from its frigate, languedoc, as well as rafale and mirage strike aircraft flying from france. so, the us was not acting alone, but with two close allies this time, and that is politically important. the targets of all this firepower? syria‘s chemical weapons production. the main target for 76 missiles was a research and development centre close to damascus. but also, a chemical weapons storage site near homs, 22 weapons were aimed there, including the raf‘s eight storm shadow missiles. and target three, a nearby chemical weapons bunker, the main french target for seven of their nine missiles. the military in the shape of the pentagon in washington say

they are very pleased with the outcome, both political and military. in a powerful show of allied unity, we deployed 105 weapons against three targets. that will significantly impact the syrian‘s regime ability to develop, deploy and use chemical weapons in the future. it has been said before, but i want to emphasise again, that by comparison, this strike was double the size of the last strike in april 2017, and i would also emphasise that this strike was a multinational effort. but an end to syria‘s appalling civil war is no closer after this military action. as long as russia continues to dominate with its forces on the ground, fighting to keep president assad in power, it is hard to see an eventual peace which isn‘t largely dictated by that alliance. james robbins, bbc news. a little earlier i spoke to former rear admiral and nato commander, chris parry, about what has been achieved by this limited military strike.

well, i think we have to look at the strategy of the three allies here. i think the strategy centred on something had to be done and it had to be something that got the attention of the regime but was not big enough to excite any other players in the region. i think that has been achieved to tell you the truth. it has also sent out a warning saying, look, we can penetrate your air defences, we have done it very easily indeed. if you misbehave again, you can expect a proportionate step up in the amount of violence we have visited on your country if you try and use chemical weapons again. what do you make of the significance being attached to whether it was russian military power that intercepted these missiles to the extent they were intercepted, or syrian? i do not believe any of these missiles were intercepted. i am afraid the truth is not a default position for either the russian government or indeed the syrian government. i have seen no video or ground evidence that any of these incoming missiles were intercepted.

and what happens next in terms of further strikes if syria crosses this red line again? well, i think as you saw and heard with this strike there was a proportionate step up in a number of missiles. the targets were very carefully selected and i think you will see a proportionate step up again because i am sure the americans in particular will have gained in this situation well ahead of it happening. so if the syrian regime decides to use chemical warfare agents again, then they will be attacked again. what i am sure about from what i have heard today is there is no intention on behalf of of the allies to end the assad regime. it seems that they are saying he is part of the solution even though he is part of the problem. i kind of think that is something russia will feel comfortable with. yes, the un today calling for a political resolution of this crisis. it has been elusive so far,

why would it appear now? well, i think you always have to have a political solution, but on the legal side what is missing in all this is the united nations has a policy of responsibility to protect and this is something that has not been mentioned in relation to this. the rulers of countries have a responsibility to protect their people and clearly assad has not done that. and so the allies have taken action in response to the united nations lead, whether or not of course there has been a un resolution in favour of action. and we know why we are not going to get a un resolution in favour of action, that is because it be vetoed by russia who, i have to say, is rather complicit in the process that is it from me. good evening. that was the kind of

spring day that many of us have been waiting for. just about where every you looked, there was at least some sunshine, a beautiful scene in the scottish highlands. dorset seen blue skies this afternoon, a beautiful day for a walk close to the coast and this is the view from space. there was more cloud in the north of england and northern ireland and scotla nd england and northern ireland and scotland but it melted away. showers in the south of england and wales through the late afternoon. as they go through the night, one word two showers in east anglia but most areas will be dry with clear spells, the odd mr fogg patch and in the south west, a change, thickening cloud, and outbreaks of rain and a wind. sunday, a slightly different looking day, more cloud around,

quite breezy particularly in the west and we will see some rain at times. that rain will be at times, you can see the sporadic bursts of rain in wales and northern ireland moving into the midlands, parts of east anglia and the south of scotland. behind our mainland of patchy rain, sunshine and hefty showers in towards the south west, pretty brisk winds, in northern ireland, north—east scotland has sunshine and temperatures here could get up to 16 degrees. cooler elsewhere. 0n get up to 16 degrees. cooler elsewhere. on monday, some spells of sunshine, particularly in central and eastern areas. that cloud in northern ireland with outbreaks of rain, a weather front trying to move in and again the west will be quite breezy and we keep the breeze on tuesday in the west. 0utbreaks breezy and we keep the breeze on tuesday in the west. outbreaks of rainfor tuesday in the west. outbreaks of rain for northern ireland and the west of scotland but further south and east, sunshine and those

temperatures, really starting to climb up to 19, maybe 20 degrees, a sign of things to come because as we head deeper into the way, particularly wednesday and thursday, we will get this very warm air and as we bring that north, temperatures up as we bring that north, temperatures up to 25 degrees in the south—east but plenty of other places not too far behind. this is bbc world news, the headlines. hello and welcome to dateline london. i‘m jane hill. 0ur programme today is dominated by the missile strike on syria carried out by the us, uk and france — following the apparent use of chemical weapons on the people of douma a week ago. what happens next, and will this have any impact on the long—running civil war in syria ? my guests this week: henry chu, the american writer and european editor of variety, the arab affairs writer abdel bari atwan, the russian commentator and former kremlin