4:00 a.m. on the east coast. we continue following breaking news this hour. >> the u.s., uk and france say they have launched military strikes against syria and its chemical weapons program. british prime minister theresa may is due to speak about the air strikes at any moment. and we'll bring you her remarks live from 10 downing street when they happen. meantime this video showed the scene in damascus earlier, it appears to show weapons of some kind streaking across the sky. we know aircraft, missiles and warships were used.

this video was posted online by the french armed forces minister. it shows a cruise missile being launched from a frigate. it's target, a chemical weapons production site. >> syrian military says more than 100 miss siiles were firedf claims the majority were intercepted, but some hit their targets. the strikes were ordered in response to the suspected chemical attack last week. here is how president trump announced the operation. >> my fellow americans, 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. the purpose of our actions tonight is to establish a strong determent against the production, spread and use of chemical weapons.

establishing this deterrent is a vital national security interest of the united states. >> the united states says the operation targeted at least three sites. they include the research center near damascus, a chemical weapons storage facility west of homs and near by command post. cnn of course following the story with our koernlcorrespond around the world. let's start with fred pleitgen live in beirut. what is the reaction you're hearing from the region and syria following these strikes? >> reporter: well, of course there was a lot of commotion in damascus when the strikes took place and a lot of fear as well. there are people that i'm speaking to who said that they were actually awake at the time and then all of a sudden heard these missiles coming, apparently it was a very loud affair. and did lead to a lot of fear among a lot of people. but now that daylight has set

in, i think a lot of people in syria are slowly believing that the strikes were a lot less potent than many would have thought. we mentioned one place that was hit was a military research facility in the north of damascus. that entire area is one giant military facility. some people believe other sites there might have been targeted as well, but certainly that research facility the u.s. says and syrian government says was one of the places that was targeted. syrian government is saying that more than 110 missiles were fired toward syrian territory, they say the majority were intercepted, but they did say that that specific facility was hit. they say that there was only material damage, no people killed or wounded, but they certainly acknowledge that there was a hit on that place. and also in and around homs, there were apparently storage facilities that were hit as well. the syrian government for its part is saying that most of those missiles were intercepted

but that some went off court after being intercepted and apparently some civilians were wounded. that is what the syrian government is saying. but they are also trying to display a sense of calm. there were some pictures of bashar al assad posted on the official twitter account of the syrian presidency of him seemingly casually walking to work at around 9:00 a.m. local time this morning. and we're also hearing that apparently now in damascus the situation is quite calm. there was a small demonstration for the syrian defense ministry against the air strikes and we're also hearing that apparently some syrian jets have been in the air there as well seemingly as a show of force after these strikes took place. >> is there is a sense there in the region that this is just a one time thing or is there concern that there could be more? >> reporter: people always wonder whether or not there might be more, but i think that right now if you look at the region and also syria, they

believe that this is probably a oneoff event. it is interesting because you get mixed messages coming from the u.s. with some officials saying that this was a oneoff strike, but others saying that it could be a an ongoing thing saying if chemical weapons are used again. but i think that most people believe that this was a oneoff. and i think the other thing that is really important to note if in all this, i think most people think they tried to strike some of these facilities but also made sure to not start some major conflict between the u.s. and russians. russia saying that the strikes happened far away from their area of responsibility. in fact the russians are even gloating and saying that the syrian military used weapons that were made in the ussr in the 1970s to take down some of these state-of-the-art modern tomahawk missiles that the u.s. fired. so it certainly seems a larger con flisflict for now has been

avoided. whether or not it is a oneoff is not clear, but it certainly seems that the strikes were a lot less lethal than many people in this region had anticipated. >> 11:05 a.m. in the morning there. and we're monitoring the response from the british prime minister. fred, thank you for the reporting. in his address, president trump had a stern warning for iran and russia in the wake of last weekend's deadly chemical attack. >> i also have a message tonight for the two governments most responsible for supporting, equipping and financing the criminal assad regime. to iran and russia, i ask what kind of a 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. russia must decide if it will continue down this dark path or if it will join with civilized nations as a force for stability and peace. hopefully some day we'll get along with russia and maybe even iran. but maybe not. >> that was the president's message to the two countries. iran responded to the air strikes saying the attack is the blatant violation of international laws as well as ignoring the sovereignty and territorial integrity of syria. >> russia's ambassador to the united states had a warning of his own. in a tweet he said pre-designed scenario is being implemented. again, we are being threatened, we warn that such actions will not be left without consequences. all responsibility for them rests with washington, london and paris. >> for more from moscow, let's go live to sam kiley.

both iran and russia, two countries aggressive goals in the region to say the least, now brazenly criticizing the west for -- let's go to theresa may. she is walking to the podium now. >> last night british, french and american armed forces conducted coordinated and targeted strikes to degrade the syrian regime's chemical weapons capability and deter their use. for uk's part, four rf tornado gr-4s launched storm shadow missiles at a military facility some 15 miles west of homs where the regime is assessed to keep chemical weapons in bleach s s syria's obligations under the chemical weapons convention. while full assessment of the strike is 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 this is 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 chemical weapons attack. we have seen the harrowing images of men, women and children lying dead with foam in their mouths. these were innocent families who at the time the chemical weapon was unleashed were seeking shelter underground in basements. firsthand accounts from ngos and aid workers have detailed the most horrific suffering including burns to the eyes, suffocation and skin discoloration, with a chlorine-like odor surrounding the victims.

at the world health organization, they have received reports 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 an example of some of the evidence that leads us to this conclusion. open source accounts allege that a barrel bomb 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. and the fact of this attack should surprise no one. we know that the syrian regime has an utterly abhorrent 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 in ghouta. there were 14 further smaller scale chemical attacks prior to that summer. on the 4th of april last year, the syrian regime used sar written against its people. and based on the regime's persist pept pattern of behavior 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 use every diplomatic channel, but our efforts have been repeatedly thwarted. following the sarin attack back in august 2013, the syrian regime committed to dismantle its chemical weapon program and russia programmed to ensure that syria did this overseen by the organization for the prohibition of chemical weapons. but these commitments have not been met. a recent report from the organization for the prohibition of chemical weapons has said that syria's declaration of its former chemical weapons program is incomplete. this indicates that it continues to retain undeclared stocks of

nerve agent and 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 u.n. 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 will not be anymore 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 blg build the evidence picture and consider what action we need to take to 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 chief of the defense staff. and we were updated on the latest intelligence picture. and based on this advice, we agreed that it was right and legal to take military action together with our closest am lies to alleviate further humanitarian suffering by degrading the syrian regime's chemical weapons capability and deterring their use. this was not about interfering in a 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 civilian casualties. together we have hit a specific and limited set of targets. they were a chemical weapons storage and production facility, a key chemical weapons research center, and a military bunker involved in chemical weapons attacks. hitting these targets with the for the that we have deploy ed will significantly degrade their ability to deploy chemical weapons. a year ago, the u.s. conducted a strike on the airfield from which the attack took place. but assad and his regime hasn't stopped their use of chemical weapons. so last night's strikes by the u.s., uk and france were significantly larger than the u.s. action a 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 the chemical weapons does not stand alone. we must remain committed to resolving the conflict at large. the best hope for the syrian people remains a political solution. we need all partners especially the regime and its backers to enable humanitarian access to those in desperate need and the uk will continue to strive for both. but these strikes are about deterrings bhar bear ri inring syria. so there must be a wider diplomatic effort including the full range of political and economic levers to strengthen the global norms procehibiting e

use of chemical weapon which is 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 that they can use chemical weapons with immunity. 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. 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 normalized 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 that when the global rules and standards that 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'll take a number of questions. >> thank you, prime minister. your logic is that chemical attacks must not go unpunished. will you do the same again if

president assad does the same again? and do you feel that you have the public's consent given that you ever not even consulted mps in parliament? >> as i said in my statement, the pump of the action that took place last night was to degrade and deter the capability and willingness of the syrian regime to use chemical weapons. as i also said obviously a full assessment has not yet been completed. but we believe that 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 that it is the right thing to do. i believe it is in our national interests, but i believe that 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 immunity.

and we must restore the position that as i said has existed for nearly a century, the use of chemical weapons is illegal, it is banned and we cannot accept it. tim. >> thank you, prime minister. you were hinting toward the end of your statement there about possible further wider action against supporters of the regime. can you plain wyou explain why yet taken action against russian money in london the way the united states have and why have no ministers been out explaining what you're explaining today throughout this week when the russian ambassador has been accusing london for culpability? >> and as i said in response to the nerve agent, we are of

course looking at every aspect of the action that can be taken. we do in general work 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've given two television interviews in which i've 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 where our international partners and allies to ascertain -- make the fullest possible assessment of what happened on the ground and to ascertain what action was necessary before we've done that and the action that we saw last night into the early hours of this morning was the result of that work. ad adam. >> prime minister, i wonder if you could explain a little more your decision and your thinking

on not seeking prior approval or debate from parliament on in decision. as you know jeremy corbyn and on the other side candace clark have said that they feel that that should have taken place. >> at i said, i believe that this action was necessary and it was the right thing for us to do. we have been working with our allies and partners over the past week first to make the if you recallest possible assessment of what happened on the ground and then to consider what action was necessary. and to do that in a timely fashion, so that we could act with sufficient understanding of what had happened on the ground and proper planning of any action. but to do so within a time scale that gave a very clear message to the regime. and it was also important and i

believe it is important it is one of tfof the grave he was dst a prime minister can take is to send our service personnel into combat and when we do that, we owe to them that we as far as possible protect their safety and their security. and for operational security reasons, it was right that we've acted in the way that we did. properly plan this, assess what happened on the ground, properly plan it, act within a time scale that is right to both protect operational security and give a very clear message to the regime. robert. >> you y 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 told 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? >> well, first of all, i referred to the salisbury -- what happened in sales bury because it was a use of a chemical weapon, a nerve agent, on the streets. the action that took place last night was an action which was focused on degrading and deterring the operation am capability and the willingness of the syrian regime to continue to use chemical weapons.am capability and the willingness of the syrian regime to continue to use chemical weapons. as i said there have been many instances. but i believe that it is also a message others that the international community will not stand by and allow chemical weapons to be used with impu impunity. we have for nearly a century now

lad a gener had a general understanding under the chemical weapons convention that chemical weapons were illegal, that their use was banned. we have in recent times seen chemical weapons been used and i think it is right that the international community has said we will not accept this and given a clear message that we want to re-establish that international norm that chemical weapons are banned and should not be used. >> if chemical weapons are indeed used again in syria, will the united kingdom take part in more targeted strikes and if it is in the coming weeks parliament will no longer be in recess, will you feel a bigger pressure to actually ask for that green light, and how important is to you that president macron is alongside

very much participating in this operation? how you would you characterize the franco-british entant about this separation? >> i should have made a reference to this. i will be in parliament on monday to make a statement to parliament and obviously to give parliamentarians an 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've 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 that the action that is 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 as well, but they should be no n. no doubt of our resolve and i believe that that is 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. obviously this has been a tripartite operation with the united states, france and united kingdom. you asked when the franco-british relationship. i think we have a very good and close relationship on security and defense matters. that was enhanced in the summit that we had earlier this year. we have been over recent years working increasingly closely together on these defense matters. >> with respect, prime minister, if there are more chemical weapons attacks in the coming weeks, will you authorize and instruct to carry out more targeted strikes without a green light from parliament? >> as i said in relation to this, i will be going to

parliament and will be taking -- making a statement in parliament. on the wider issue, i did address the wider issue of this was a limited and targeted strike that took place last night or 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. >> the syrian civil war has seen a huge displacement of people from the middle east toward the west. i'm wondering if you think that your action today will exacerbate that and cause more refugees to come to the west. and if you can tell us what extra planning, extra actions you will be taking to address that point, ease the pressure on nations and help the refugees

themselves. >> well, you are right of course 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 obviously a large number of refugees from syria being displaced both to countries in the region and further ofafield and of course we have been receiving a number of refugees here in the uk ourselves. but our focus has always been on support for refugees in the region with considerable support to countries that have been providing refugee for them. leb about a lebanon, jordan and turkey are providing refugee. nobody could be anything but appalled by the scenes of the attack in douma. and it is right i believe that the international community has acted to give that very clear

message about in use ever chemical weapons. >> are you concerned that yyou perhaps do not have the support of the british people? polling has shown around a fifth of the people support further action in syria. and what is your message to the people who are uneasy about the action you've taken? >> as i've said, i've taken this decision because i believe it is the right thing to do. i think my message to people 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 that chemical weapons are illegal, they are banned, that has generally been accepted. we have seen that international norm being eroded. it has been eroded a number of ways. as i say, we've seen a nerve a

little usagent used on the streets. and we have seen the syrian regime continuing to use chemical weapons despite the fact that after august 2013 they said that they were dismantle willing their chemical weapons and russia guaranteed that that was taking place. that commitment has not been met. so for the alleviation of humanitarian suffering in syria, but also if we look that the more widely, i think it is in all our interests that we restore that international norm on the prohibition of the use of chemical weapons. >> how much did yyou agonize about this decision, did it keep you awake at night? >> as i said in my statement and i've repeated since, there is no graver decision that a prime minister can take than 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 at cabinet together with the discussions with the 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 we must say this must stop. and it is in all our interests for us to ensure that the use of chemical weapons stops and it is in the interests of all our futures to ensure that the use of chemical weapons stops. >> obviously there has been no parliamentary approval to this action for reason 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, do you intend to push for a vote to get parliament behind you? >> as i say and as you picked up perhaps in your question, i think the decision was taken for operational reasons after we had the opportunity to provide the fullest possible assessment and proper planning. and i believe that it was the right thing to do. but we will of course be given an opportunity, first opportunity when parliament resits will be on monday for me to go in to parliament to make a statement and hear the views of parliamentarians on this issue. and i will be very clear with parliament as i have been clear this morning and have been clear with others that this is not about action to intervene in the civil war. it is not about anything to do with regime change. it is about the use of chemical

weapons. streetsth it is it is a limited strike in order to deter the use of chemical weapons. >> thank you, prime minister. during your statements, you have repeatedly talked about the victims of the douma incident. have you considered or are you considering to have some of these victims take -- have the care and the medical care as the same given to the skripals. and secondly, if it emerges that the syrian regime has other chemical sites that have not been attacked, would you go after them and would you enlarge your tripartite coalition? >> on the first point, obviously one of the issues that we have as the 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 used of chemical weapons, but indeed more generally in syria. and also we have made a number of attempts through the united nations and others in other ways to try to ensure proper humanitarian access to people to ensure that they can be provided with the 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've said in response to other questions, i believe it is important this was a collective action taken by the uk together with france in the united states, there have been a number of of other supportive statements from other international leaders that 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 that we can give this very clear message when the use of chemical weapons. that is what this action has been about and that what we will continue to press on in a whole variety of ways. >> thank you prime minister. because of this continuing and heightening tension between the west and russia, some people started to call this situation new cold war. and what would you do, what could you do in order not to let this military activity lead to new cold war? >> as i say, this has been focus, this action has been focused on the activities of the syrian regime. obviouslyceseayrian regime has been backed by russia. there is 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 that peace for syria in the future and a political solution for syria in the future. >> given the failure as you have said in your statement of all diplomatic efforts so far, what is the plan following these strikes? >> sorry, what is the -- >> what is your plan following the strikes. >> we, as i said, diplomatic efforts in itself has not had the impact that we wished it would have. so we have taken the military action and we will renew our efforts. some of that will be through the

united nations to press for opportunities for proper investigation and the holding to account of those who use these chemical i said the aim is to their ability and deter the use of chemical weapons. but there is the wider message about the use of chemical weapons and we will continue to pursue that through the you united nations and throughout the forum. >> 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'll be aware, this is a complicated picture in terms of

operations that take place in syria. full and proper planning was put in place before these strikes were undertaken to ensure that we could mitigate and minimize the impact on civilians and ensure that these strikes were absolutely targeted at their aim which was the chemical weapons capability of the syrian regime. >> what would you say to britons and others who may now fear reprisals in the wake of the attacks? >> we have of course taken steps to ensure that we are providing support and looked at those britons who are overseas who may be concerned about such attacks in the foreign office of course providing advice to people as it would do in these circumstances.

>> prime minister, why not wait one or two days this order to get formal proof for the reproaches that they have used chemical weapons especially since the russians are at the moment very carefully framing information that there are no proofs and that great britt lynn britain is lie something. >> we have made every effort to assess what has lapped on the ground.something. >> we have made every effort to assess what has lapped on the ground. i've given a number of examples that led us to believe that this was a chemical weapons attack and at the hachnds of the syria regime. and this is not the only attack that has taken place. and the reason for our action isn't simply about what happened in douma, it is about a wider pattern of the use of chemical weapons. the opcw has on four previous occasions investigated and

identified the syrian regime's use of chemical weapons. and i think it was important that at the point at which we had the information that showed us that all the indications were that this was a chemical weapons attack at the hands of the syrian regime, the planning had been put in place that we took the action that was necessary. >> thank you. given that chemical attacks happened before in syria and the uk didn't take such measures as yesterday, do you think that your decision last night about syria would have been the same if the salisbury attack didn't happen? >> we looked at this very much in terms of what had happened in syria and continued use of chemical weapons in syria. the united states had acted alone in relation to the previous attacks. so i believe it was right on this occasion that there was a

wider collective action that took place which showed the strength of the action that was being taken. it was significantly greater action. but also also showed the strength of the international community's response. we've been concerned for some time about the use of chemical weapons in syria and the evidence that has been gathered about that continued use of chemical weapons was such that we felt that it was right to participate on this occasion. i just have three more here. >> i'm still a little unclear about what you see the role of parliament in this. in the event that the uk takes further military action, will you put that to a vote of mps? >> as i said, this decision was taken because i believe it was the right thing to do. the power to take this decision

is obviously a prerogative power. and at the first opportunity for parliame parliament, they will have an opportunity to question this and i will be in parliament as i've said on monday in order to do so. the intent of this action is that it does degrade and it does deter the syrian regime from taking action. we will be following up with further diplomatic efforts in relation to the wider question of the use of chemical weapons. two more. >> in light of russia continuing to use its veto, have they concerned about the ongoing effectiveness of the united nations? >> i think my message would be this about the security council. membership of the security council is-46 permane -- perman membership is given only to a limited number of countries. i think it is important that those who sit around that security council table take

seriously the responsibility that they have to the wider international community for decisions that are taken. i hope that the action that has been taken in syria will deter and degrade the syrian regime's capability and willingness to use chemical weapons, but will also send a message to others about the use of chemical weapons. this is illegal, it is banned, it should not happen. gentleman in the second row here. >> you've been very clear that this is not about regime change. why not and is it the british position now that assad can stay as long as he doesn't use chemical weapons? >> no, this was about as i've said and you recognized this was specifically about the use of chemical weapons. there is a wider question on the future political solution for saer i can't and th syria and we will continue to pursue that in diplomatic and political channels with our international partners and

allies. the last one from dave. >> in light of the benefit of hindsight do you feel that what has happened over the last five years as demonstrated that the vote in 2013 to take no action proves that taking no action in these cases can be as devastating as going in? >> obviously as you will be a warks i was member a warks wear, i voted to take action in 2013. we felt at the time that it was the right thing to do. following that of course, there were commitments given by the syrian regime in relation to destroying their chemical weapons and the russian -- the russia committee to guaranteeing that that was taking place. that has not happened. and i think it is right now that we have sent that clear message by taking this military action. thank you. all right. right there for nearly 40 minutes there, the british prime

minister theresa may addressing the press and the british people saying that she couldn't give all of the evidence, but that did basically explain the evidence that she could as to why the nation took the action that it did, and also explaining why 34r0diplomacy fell short. >> she certainly made her resolve on this issue of chemical weapons and that was the purpose behind this strike and she felt no other alternative. >> let's bring in our international correspondent in london. i know that you were listening on. takeaways from what you heard? >> reporter: this is the first time that we got detail of the facilities that was struck. a storage and production facility, research facility and military bunker. she also specified where the royal air force had hit which is just west of homs. she also put out the n. terms of

rebuffing what we've been hearing from the russians, that this was unjustified. she makes very clear that russia was in contravention of the international chemical weapons watch dogs requirements in terms of doing away with their chemical weapons stock hold. but also that russia guaranteed that this would be done. so she was carefully in terms of the broader russian culpability. and how much this is in britain's national interests. the sense really is emerging here that britain out of the three allies has the clearest argument in terms of broader national interests. she reminded us that britain itself has seen an act of russian aggression with the poisoning on of sergei skripal and his daughter, and this was a use of chemical weapons with impunity, an act of russian

aggressi aggression. and so this was in part a response to that. and she spoke to the fact that the use of chemical weapons cannot go without a response. but she left the door open for future attacks. and that has been a point of contention between the pentagon and president trump. president trump also left the door open for further attacks when he spoke in the aftermath of these attacks, but then general mattis stepped forward and said these were limited, this was the only case that we are dealing with right now. but prime minister theresa may there saying that if we need it, we will strike again. >> and also interesting to hear her address the rush good samaritan claim that this might have been somehow staged by the united kingdom basically describing that as an absurd allegation. so these actions taken overnight, you heard the prime minister bring up the poisoning of sergei skripal and julio. she says the actions were taken

on the issue of chemical weapons, but is this also seen there as a warning to russia? >> reporter: absolutely. and it is interesting that in the hours before this attack, yesterday the national security adviser here took a pretty you been press defencedencs unprece britain believes that it was russia and they talked the british public through the key points, what kind of an agent, the level of evidence that the russian intelligence services had been tracking sergei for the last five years. and also evidence that russians had been acting out, they had been game williing out circumstn which novichok could be used on door handles which is exactly the way that the poison was used

in the skripergei skripal attac. the sense is that before she goes in to parliament, she wanted to make clear that ouftd three allies, britain needed this to happen. europe as a whole what you of course macron is on board with this as well. see what happened in syria, what happened on the streets of salisbury, as part of a continuum of russian overreach. it stretches back to 2014 and the annex saying of the crimean territory and that the world now cannot stand idly by.saying of territory and that the world now cannot stand idly by. >> nima elbajir, thank you for the reporting. we'll stay in touch with you. let's also now put it into focus with a profgts or essor of international relations and author of "making the arab world." let's start with the french

response to this case. compared to the situation that they were in in 2013, describe the difference. >> yes, i mean -- >> are you still with us? >> yes, i am. >> just the difference between what we saw several years ago. >> yes. i mean, as president macron has made it clear, that the use of chemical weapons will trigger a french response. and it was very important for the president and also the prime minister to [ inaudible ] beyond the rhetoric, in fact my argument is attacks against

chemical [ inaudible ] >> western powers are not interested in assad. [ inaudible ] >> we have to interrupt you. we're having signal issues hearing you. we'll bring you back in shortly to get your perspective, but stand by as we clear that up and we'll bring you back in. so let's bring in now from the independent think tank chatham house, they promote the understanding of major international issues. and jacob is joining us from london. thank you. first let's get your reaction to the strike. the u.s., france, uk united whereas in previous times both the uk and france have balance bei balked in joining the ugs. what does this represent?

>> i think it is a recommend nation that the use of chemical weapons reflects a long standing history of these uses. if there is sort of a lack of unity before, the repetition, the repeated use of chemical weapons has sort of brought france, the uk and u.s. into line. and there is a sense that there is unity because this is a time limited oneoff strike, a relatively small deployment of military forces, the risk is relatively lotiw, so a point of agreement between all three governments and they can all in a time when they are having trouble finding common purpose on iran and on a few other issues, this is something that they can all agree on. i think there is a broad political purpose there. >> this based on the allegation that the syrian government used chemical weapons on its own people, some question why chemical weapon s were even use

gic given success of that regime. but the greater question here, is this a situation where it will even make a difference, jacob? >> well, you raise a good point which is that a relatively small proportion of the casualties in the syrian conflict over the last seven years have been from chemical weapons. the vast majority of casualties are caused by air strikes, artillery fire, sieges, are starvation. chemical weapons are low downs list. there is a long standing international thunderstorm against the use, especially against the use of civilian targets. and there is a very valid purpose in defending that norm. but you also have to look at it in the context of a much greater level of violence that has been carried out in the syrian confli conflict. convention conventional weapons hasn't drawn a response from these

countries. >> theresa may was asked about why didn't the uk support regime change, why just limited to this one instance of retaliating for the chemical weapon. russia's role here complicates the situation for the west, does it not? it puts the west in a box. >> it does. partly because the situation on the ground is very different from how it was in 2013. you now have a significant number of russian soldiers, russian virzadvisers, military hardware on the ground. and there is a very real danger if you engage in a wide scale ka campaign that you will kill russian virsz aadvisors. and that could precipitate a wider conflict. so facts on the ground at issue that keeps the western response relatively limited. but i think that there is also just a worry in the western

capitals that while a oneoff strike may be soon as a demonstration of resolve, a demonstration of norms maintenance, that a longer engagement might end up in some kind of squag miquagmire and we it in the middle east before, that the west steps in with a clear purpose and then gets drawn into other issues and eventually sort of finds itself held in a conflict without really being able to necessarily affect the o effect the outcome. >> jake sob, thacob, thank you perspecti perspective. again the united states, uk and france taking action in syria. stand by. more news at the top of the hour.

nothing smells greater than the great outdoors... especially when you're in accounts receivable. only one detergent can give you a sniff like this... try gain botanicals laundry detergent. one of the many irresistible scents from gain.

if you'd have told me three years ago... that we'd be downloading in seconds, what used to take... minutes. that guests would compliment our wifi. that we could video conference... and do it like that. (snaps) if you'd have told me that i could afford... a gig-speed. a gig-speed network. it's like 20 times faster than what most people have. i'd of said... i'd of said you're dreaming. dreaming!

definitely dreaming. then again, dreaming is how i got this far. now more businesses in more places can afford to dream gig. comcast, building america's largest gig-speed network. this is cnn breaking news. >> 5:00 a.m. here on the east coast. we continue to follow the news the united states, france and the united kingdom taking action in syria. thank you for joining us. i'm natalie allen. >> i'm george howell. the u.s., uk and france have launched military strikes against syria and its chemical weapons program in the skies above damascus. these images show what many saw. weapons of some kind streaking across the night sky. we also know aircraft, missiles and warships were used in the strike. this video was posted online by the