the united states has warned syria it will carry out further missile strikes if the government of president assad uses chemical weapons again. the american ambassador to the un, nikki haley, told the security council the us was "locked and loaded". the strikes have been described as hooliganism by the russian ambassador vassily nebenzia. he said there'd been a blatant disregard for international law. the un secretary general, antonio guterres, has appealed for restraint in what he called "dangerous circumstances". there've been huge anti—government protests in the hungarian capital, budapest. tens of thousands of people were demonstrating against the right—wing government of prime minister viktor orban. a week ago, his party won two—thirds of the parliamentary seats with half of the national vote. now on bbc news — dateline london. hello and welcome

to dateline london. i'm jane hill. our 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 7 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 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 mattis is saying it is pinpointed at nuclear weapon facilities and that it was a proportionate response to what we saw.

—— chemical. we knoinm was one of the voices within this administration trying to bring back donald trump from a more bellicose age. his tweets 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. the us is in concert with london and paris. yes, very much led by the us, but emanuel macron has been energetic, saying we want tojoin in on this. theresa may after calculation did join in. the british part sounds like it is small.

we hear stories of four missiles 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 strong. his base of support is much stronger now. 100 missiles were actually fired at syria or syrian targets. 70 of them were shot down by missiles from syria and russia. they promised us they will 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 it's about sending out a signal that the use of chemical weapons must not be repeated. would the three nations involved there not see 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 do 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 indications on social media, and also some media, that these chemical weapons were used and by assad. he's 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. no, he didn't say that. it is on record. check your facts. you're 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. their staff are there now.

i hear echoes of iraq and libya. they don't wait for evidence, they attack. for many people, this is sort of a guilty verdict from them, because they didn't wait for the evidence. it's not there isn't any evidence, 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 there 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 don't we wait and trust an expert on the field. that is one issue.

the biggest issue, total disrespect to the united nations, total. that undermines the united nations o again, that they have no ability, not only to prevent conflicts, but no ability in the last minute to do something to stop them 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 effective. 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 vetoes, then the system is broken. you can't get an agreement, but you

can geta you can't get an agreement, but you can get a display of views. the bid that the us and the uk and the us had 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 domestically as 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 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 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 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 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 time 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 when i simply think that this should be done. many people think she would have won a vote in parliament. i give her 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, when polls said only 22% supported 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 people in the parliament. but theresa may now is taking an act of war 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 do 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. there is no connection and no proof about the use... the point is about the use

of chemical weapons anywhere in the world. i understand. it is completely two 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, these sort of substances are 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 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 a well organised anti—russian campaign. you can't 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 the opcw. .. when there was no proof, nobody even knew who this man was or what happened. this was immediate. 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 you're questioning, russia is not mentioned in it. and the nerve agent doesn't even exist. 20 or 30 years ago, that nerve agent means absolutely nothing. if he was shot by a gun,

are we going 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 hendy, your thoughts about the trump administration. we have the extra something 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 putin. 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 their 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 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 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 syria and its future, because there is going to be 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 sit in a situation 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 end, ever? how do we reach a 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 we 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, let us sit there and the superpowers should agree to stop backing sides and try and reach a solution. and to say to the saudi allies

and the other allies, stop pouring money and supporting these organisations. i am glad you mentioned geneva. bronwyn, is there any prospect something could come out of geneva? people talked 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 proxy to pull out. you're absolutely right to mention saudi arabia and iran, which are very invested in this. this is one where the us and britain and france have little part to play, because russia has been shaping this for the past five years. so has iraq.

the key players in the geneva talks on what is happening in syria. i 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's 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 notjust 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 starts the mess. 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 say chemical weapons and then it's all over again. there has to be an understanding through the regional key players that something as we done. and big ones like america and others, come in as well. i personally think that israel has a lot to play here. hugely important nation

that's got channels of communication to everyone. so they are very important in this game and i think the russians have a very good understanding. that is a possibility. but if we have 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 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 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 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 a bigger problem? i thought there was an agreement in 2013 that 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. why 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 chlorine and possibly a nerve agent. in douma, there is no proof at all. by the way, the footage of those victims, i have 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 there is a reason to fake it. alexander, we have discussed that. barry, you talked about talking to assad, having more talks. the broker is that? how does that come about? the united nations can do that. for the last seven years, we have had only war and bombing. this time of thing, it didn't work. so why don't we talk to 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 deposed 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 peace for the middle east and we have to remember, we intervened in libya, that what happened. intervening in iraq, look what is happening. intervening in syria, look what is happening. it is time to use a different style, and 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, we must leave it there. much more passionate debate

this time next week. thanks for being with us. hello there. if scenes like these have left you wanting more spring warmth and sunshine, well, i have to say, the second half of the weekend probably won't live up to the promise of the first. that is how saturday ended across north yorkshire. orkney shrouded in a bit of low cloud but some blue skies overhead as well. sunday does look a little bit different because of this area of low pressure, which is now pushing its way in from the west. it will strengthen up the winds. this frontal system will also bring some outbreaks of rain northward and eastward across the uk. so, sunday, a cloudy day. quite a breezy day as well. there will be some rain at times but not all the time. it is by no means a complete washout. we will, though, see some rain into the south—west, parts of wales, northern ireland, through the first part of the morning. that rain pushing its way across the midlands and northern england and southern scotland through the day. this is bbc news. i'm nkem ifejika.

our top stories. clashes at the united nations — as the us warns syria it will carry out more missile strikes — if necessary. if the syrian regime uses this a response is hello and welcome to bbc news. america's envoy to the united nations has warned