and chlorine gas noninnocent men, women come and children. we hope you'll stay with the fox news channel continuing coverage all throughout the night of the u.s. military strike in syria, stay tuned, shepard smith is coming up next, we'll see you back here tomorrow night. is a sarin gas attack take killed more than 80, including 27 children. tonight's u.s. attack on an air base near homes in syria designed to send a message to the dictator assad that he must stop murdering his own people. jennifer griffen life at the pentagon with the latest on the strike. >> we've just had a statement from captain jeff davis here at the pentagon, and they can

confirm that shortly after 8:40 p.m. eastern tonight, 59 tomahawk missiles landed at the shea i can't tell air base inside syria in the far from homes, 120 miles from the site where the occurred in terms of . is that is where the plane plane took off that was carrying those chemical weapons that struck that village earlier this week. in the we now have video from the pentagon of the tomahawks that were fired from both the uss ross and porter, which were based in the eastern mediterranean. not clear how far off the coast of syria those two destroys we

were. tomahawks can fly 1,000 miles. these are 1,000-pound missiles. so 59, one now pound munitions landed at one air base. you can imagine what kind of message that sent to president bashar al-assad the syrian regime. we also learned from the pentagon that the u.s. military contacted the russian military through an established hotline to warn them about the tomahawk strike because russian forces are based at that base. it's not clear if there are any casualties tonight. no clear if any people were at the base at the time, but again, the u.s. military went to great lengths to avoid civilian carpets, to avoid casualty advertise of people at the base. they warned the russian military through this hotline they've been using the u.s. military

headquarters in the middle east to the air base where the russians had headquarters in syria. >> we've confirmed that the russians were notified through diplomatic channels in advance. has there lenny response from russia? >> they have put out a sears of statements -- series of statements suggesting that this is being seen as an escalation. there have been criticism of the airstrikes publicly from russia, but we also understand from john properties, who is down in marring, that the president didn't call president putin. the milt to milt channels, been established in recent weeks and months was chairman of the joint chiefs here at the pentagon. general did you know ford has met with his counterpart in turkey because as you know, there are 1,000 u.s. troops in the ground in syria. u.s. war planes over northern

syria. almost daily, and they are very concerned about de-conflicting with the russian military. so it's a very crowded space. that air base that was taken out tonight is near homes, which is very close to the border with lebanon, and not farr from israel. so this is a very powerful pentagon is calling ate proportional response for the chemical attack on that village in which dozens of women ask children were killed in there are sleep, shrugged to breathe after inhaling that sarin gas. the world health organizes has had people on the ground in that village taking samples, pentagon and western intelligence is very certain at this time that it was a sarin gas attack conducted by the bashar al-assad regime. the pentagon put out some maps showing the flight path of the syrian plane that took off from

that air base and bombed that village earlier this week with the sarin gas. >> white house officials met late into the night last evening. the joint chiefs met today, and the strikes began just after 8:00 ian time tonight. president trump spoke minutes after the attack. he just concluded a dinner in the palm beaches with the chinese president chi. >> my fellow americans, on tuesday, syrian dictator bashar al-assad launched a horrible chemical weapons attack on innocent civilians, using a deadly nerve agent, assad choked out the lives of helpless men, women, and children. it was a slow and brutal death for so many. even beautiful babies were

cruelly muttered in this very bar bearing attack. no child of god should ever suffer such horror. tonight i ordered a targeted military strike on the airfield in syria from where the chemical attack was launched. it is in this vital national security of the united states to prevent and deter the spread and use of deadly chemical weapons. there can be no dispute that syria used banned chemical weapons, violated its obligations under the chemical weapons convention and dr. ignored the urging of the un

security council. years of previous attempts at changing assad's behavior have all failed and failed very dramatically. as a result, the refuge crisis continues to deepen, and the region continues to destabilize, threatening the united states and its allies. tonight, i call an on all civilized nations to join us in seeking to end this slaughter. and bloodshed. in syria. and also to end terrorism of all kinds and all types. we ask for god's wisdom as we face the challenge of our very troubled world. we pray for the lives of the wounded and for the souls of those who have passed. and we hope that as long as

america stands for justice and peace and harmony will in the end prevail. good night and good bless america, and the entire world many thank you. >> that was the president speaking just a short time ago. from mar-a-lago down in south florida after the meeting with xi jinping the action comes after the u.n. security council met but never voted on action. the white house says the administration is networked establish a coalition, one which as of this hour has not officially come together. analytics say the president has taken a significant gamble. any time military action is taken, there's a calculation on response. the syrian conflict is extremely complicated. dozens on insurgent groups are

fighting against the syrian regime simultaneously. syrian forces were backed by sec attorney my latisha she's. some of the fighting groups are aligned with al qaeda. united states also has forces on the ground advising locals ahead of an assault on raqqah in syria. all of that makes any military action extremely risky. how might the syrians or the russians or iranians respond? military analysts say the calculation is this will bring about a de-escalation by assad, but there are no guarantees. our chief political reporter live in washington tonight. brett, the president says the time had come for action, and he acted. >> reporter: shep, being president carries a heavy burden. the easy decisions are solved below you, and the tough intractable decisions the ones that look like they can't be

resolved end up on the president's desk. this was a decision that was take commander in chief's decision to go ahead with the this strike. he made the ultimate call to go ahead ted advice of his adviso advisors. it is getting bipartisan suppo support. you heard senator rubio earlier, senator mccain, but now the senate minority leader putting out a statement saying making sure assad nose that when at til pay a price is the right thing to do. it is incumbent on the trump administration to come up with a a strategy and consult with congress before implementing it. i salute professional limb and skill of our armed forces. that from senate minority meter shupeer. on background, we heard from the national security advisor mcmaster, saying the regime retains some capability of chemical weapons. that obviously bringing up the

issue of where did they go when the obama administration said they were out of syria. he says beyond this one airfield, there is still that threat in this syria. he said this was specifically at that airfield to push back at that specific facility, but it was not a small strike. it should be a big change in assad's calculus. it's the first time the u.s. has taken decisive action. that is the point. decisive action showing strength, showing after seven years of war crimes that assad can't continue to do that. the secretary of state tillerson continuing on background on the record through the geneva process, we will start a political process to resolve syria's future in terms of its government structure and in our view that will lead this assad's departure. they're going to, like the obama administration, try to negotiate assad out of power.

>> brett, practically speaking, we received these photos and this horrific strike on women and children the innocence there, but this is a pattern that has continued for many years. barrel bombing from the skies had become sort of matter of course for bashar al-assad. striking his own people in this brutal way is a matter of pattern. the president seemed to suggest that it was these pictures that made him make the change. the pictures were new, but the actions were continuing. >> reporter: they were, but again, being president does give you a different perspective. you obviously have access to all the classified information, the intelligence community as we've reported, some details about high confidence in the intelligence community and with intelligence agencies from other countries that this in fact, was bashar al-assad at the hand of

this chemical attack, and seeing the images and getting the reports is different than from the outside reacting to actions or inactions many i will say that -- and we've pointed this out numerous times tonight -- the signifying of the meeting with arab leaders right before this action, the fact that the outpouring of support from the president of egypt and the king of jordan and the crowned prince of sobbed, the fact that there seems to be action in the arab coalition to step up not only in syria, but other elephants, because now they feel like they have an ally, especially in the wake of shifting map how siren treated the obama administration putting iran at the center of their foreign policy. now this trump administration giving the gulf allies a unifying factor, and possibly some kind of strategy for

dealing with the future of syria. >> live with us in washington, brett thanks. john roberts chief white house corresponded is on the road with the president where he made the announcement tonight. john. >> reporter: we just got out of that briefing with rex tillerson the secretary of state and h.r. mcmaster the national security advisor where we listened to them speak at length about the background all of this saying this was aimed a.m. bashar al-assad's capacity to commit murder with chemical weapons. this was done at a time and in such a way mcmaster's said to minimize casualty, you can read russians into that. they also took care when attac attacking this military facility, this air base, not to hit the stockpiles of chemical weapons that were there. we thought perhaps that was the target, but general mcmaster's

saying that specifically they were trying to avoid hitting those stockpiles of chemical weapons because they were afraid of what might happen if they blew those up. a little bit about the tick tock of how this all happened. when the president woke up on wednesday morning, he heard about this attack and what had happened as the horror of what happened in syria became quite clear, he convened a meeting of his principals committee of national security counsel. they gave him the lay of the land, what happened, how it happened, what was involved. the president then took that information to chew it over for a little while. late last night, the nsc held another meeting that went into the night, early hours of this morning, where they went over all of the potential options that might be involved here in responding to that attack, and that was after the president gave his very strident comments in the rose garden in the afternoon of the white house there standing with the king of jordan. the president came back to them

with some questions this morning after he thought about it a little while longer. they again convened a meet of the nsc this morning to go over those questions, and then the this afternoon at mar-a-lago they brought the questions back to the not. saying this demonstrates this is a president who is not afraid to act when he sees that a redline has been crossed. secretary tillerson also saying that -- you spoke to this shep, been going ongoing for years, and it has, and the world has been outraged by this, but when these things happen like this chemical attack happened if august of 2013, but then we become somewhat ininured, the suffering with the? constant barrel bombing going on, that doesn't make the headlines every day. but according to secretary tell us tillerson the president was particularlily struck by the heinous nature of these chemical weapons when he saw the video that was coming out of syria of

the children and the babies who were dead, dying, or suffering so horribly, and that really changed his mind. now, in terms of of notification here, we were told by the secretary that at no time either prior to or after the attack was the leadership in moscow on the russian side notified about this. he did say that the russians were notified through these and jennifer griffen was talking about about this, deconfliction channels that have been established, and i was told by senior administration official the president she was unaware of what going to happen while he was having dinner with the president, but the president did notify him shortly before he made that statement that you played a short time ago. >> john roberts with a wealth of information from south florida for this evening. thank you. let's turn general jack keane now. general the president designed this to send a strong message in a bashar al-assad must stop. >> yeah, absolutely.

he clearly it's a targeted limited attack, and he wanted to send that medication ungive century to him. he could have taken down all the air fields if he desired to do that. we could have done that in the same night. that would have drove up the casualties, and what he wants to have happen here is compel a change of behavior with assad. that is what this is about. >> and when drawing up plans for a matter like this, general keane as you have so many times in the past, when making these plans, what do you use as a calculation for what response might actually come? >> well, certainly that is always in the plan. what is the risk of the mission being successful, and then what is the risk in terms of consequences of your actions. and they've war gamed all of that out. what is a likely syrian response? will there be a russian response? how will world opinion react to this? how well those in the middle

east react to this? i think largely the middle east is going to be incredibly positive about this action being taken. if you think about it, shep, since the president took office on january 20th, he has largely been reassuring allies that american leadership is back in the world. he did it in europe with secretary defense, the secretary of state, homeland security vice president all going there within the first 30 days. in the far east with the secretary of defense and state. he's been visiting with counties countries from the middle east that he's been hosting here if the united states, reassuring them as well, and what he's saying to them in so many words is i've got your back. if things are going to go wrong, united states is going to be there for you, and this is not just a message to bashar al-assad and his heinous behavior, it's a message to all of our allies, and it's also a

message, shep, to iran, to russia, and to china, who he's meeting with right now. and so to tell rowing state of north korea. >> the next question, you mentioned china, there will be discussions ongoing north korea, and the united states very much needs the chinese to play a role in contexting the north koreans down out of the ledge, i would like your expertise that this is a message for them along those lines as well. >> yeah it absolutely is. the reality is three presidents, 20 plus years, have tried to leverage the chinese to coerce the north koreans to dee militarizing. it's been a failure. we've tried options, and they have all failed. now we have a fourth president, who is going to try the same thing. he's going to try to leverage the chinese to accomplish that.

the walk as you said the north koreans back from the ledge. i think this action tonight helps him in that leverage, simply this, because as we're moving forward with the north koreans, their rhetoric to strike the united states with icbms weaponized for that purpose, and clearly moving as quickly as they can in that intention. 24 ballistic testers. about to do a sixth nuclear test. dead serious about developing the capability. as we move towards that option, it leaves the president with only a military option to stop him from doing that, which would mean war on the peninsula. nobody wants that. the chinese don't want that, and i think what he's going to be able to tell president xi here is listen, we've got to have north korea stand down now. not wait as we move towards this you're going to leave me only with the worst possible option to execute. i don't want to do it.

you don't want me to do it. the result would be catastrophic. now, they've been dealing with the president who had a lot of rhetoric, but north koreans and the chinese believe president obama would never act militarily. now they have evidence that this president would when it's in the united states national interest and the interest of our allies, and i believe it will carry a loud message to the chinese. there are other issues with the chinese concerning trade south china sea, east china sea, the growing military reform of the chinese and certainly the occurrence and maples automation that they have. but this will carry the loudest message all. >> i remember you telling me any time a united states military enters a conflict on any level with limited and targeted strikes as we've done tonight, you have to plan for all the possibilities of what happens next. and i would ask you tonight, is there a plan as far as you know,

for should the syrians act in a way that we hope they won't. if the syrians would incentivized backing down would physicality their attacks on their own people, then would the united states physicality and this could expand? >> yes, certainly the case, and all of that has been war gamed out. but there's another actor here that may in fact, curb the syrian behavior, that's the russians. the russians do not want the united states involved in syria where we're trying to gain a political outcome that's favorable to the united states and to the arabs in the region. they do not want that. they want to keep an not necessarily assad in power aligned with them, the military aligned we want iranians and the alliance they have with the owners is much closer than people recognize at least in tillerson of media reporting. so i didn't, i think the russians will actually be an

actor here that will help us certainly unofficially in trying to curb assad's behavior. because they do not want the united states to get further involved. >> general jack keane great to have you with us thank you very much. let's turn now to former cia counter terrorism analyst thank you. >> how you doing. >> the risks and reward here the president has taken the calculated risk that this will send a pledge to the syrians. you must stop murdering your people. he didn't take out all their air power. tried to avoid civilian casualty, it was a targeted strike, but the risks based on this action as you see them. >> the question is what is really the mission here. is the mission here to stop assad from using chemical weapons and that sort of thing on civilians, on other remember groups? is the mission to keep him from murdering other people?

is it really more or less moral to use barrel bombs, conventional weaponry than using chemical weapons? obviously the outcomes are oftentimes the same, and so the thing that the white house really has to determine is whether the mission is to either take out assad, to keep him from using chemical weapons, or to deter the russians or iranians from using their client state to actually do something. that is really the question that the white house and the world community really needs to ask donald trump tonight. >> what we've been told so far is this was to send a message to bashar al-assad, that he must stop. if he does not stop, i don't think we've yet received a message about what happens next. >> that's a great point. now, does a pinpoint strike or airstrike on an airfield, one night, about 4:30 in the morning in syria now, that tried to minimize casualties obviously they told the russians in

advance, but the russians are very close to the syrians so i'm not sure they were warned about this as well was the point the destroy its air power? as you had mentioned general mcmaster had said 13 not going to target the weapon stockpiles at that facility. so what really was the point? and the question is, what happens the day after? does assad perceive that if he can destroy -- that something that might happen that one air base was destroyed, maybe heel use chemical weapons if he believes it is in his best interest. we're going to see whether donald trump in the days ahead is going to physicality this, or if this is a one off kind of situation. >> so many different competing forces on the ground there. dozens of militias fighting against the syria regime the russians finding well syrian regime, elements out of lebanon, this the iran i can't answer as

well. the united states backing these rebels. at the same time the united states with forces enrolled on the ground assisting the locals in a planned taking on raqqah, the isis strong hold. so many different players in this same theoretical, to say that it's complicated might be if understatement of night. how do you manage all of that? >> that is a great, great question, and in fact, if you've got the answer for that, then i'm sure donald trump would really like to know that. remember that the united states for the longest time has talked about telling about how assad must go, now we've had haley saying this is not something we are going to be choosing to do. we also know that isis is a threat both to the united states and also our europe allies. what is more important. what in the terms of what the united states wants to accomplish is it to destroy isis, take raqqah, destroy isis as an organization both syria and iraq? is it to pacify assad?

is it to keep these chemical weapons which are so horrible from actually being used again against civilians, and then what is the outcome in syria that we really want? is it a negotiated settlement? is it something where assad kind of controls a rump state? is it assad leaves power? does he die? all these questions must be answered to the best of our abilities before we can actually proceed on an actual strategy. because unless we know what the mission is, the strategy cannot follow it. >> thank you i appreciate it. i mentioned how complicated these matters are. the president saying that it's the video of the sarin gas attack that changed his mind. the administration truly did a 180 on its policy toward the syrian regime and is conflict in the matter of the just three days. remember, it was the white house that said that it will syrians would decide to fate of bashar

al-assad. today, the secretary of state spoke, seemed to indicate that regime change is something that the united states would seek. we later learned the secretary of state may have misspoken on that matter. we know the idea was to send a message. the truth is, these texas on the people was nothing new. it had been going on for the better part of seven years. it was going on when donald trump was candidate. it was going on in the beginning of his presidency and up until now. the president says he'd had enough, and it was rex tillerson the secretary of state, who letterhead us to this point earlier. >> the events that have occurred in syria with the chemical weapons attack here in the past day just, i think, horrified all of us, and brought to the front pages and to our television screens as well the tragedy that is part of the syrian conflict. there is no doubt in our minds

and the information we have supports that syria, the syrian regime under leadership out of president banner, are responsible for this -- bashar al-assad are responsible to or this attack. i think further it is very important that the russian government consider carefully their continued support for the assad regime. >> as awful as this attack was, this attack was a mirror of others that have happened over the last months and engineers. the state department certainly aware of that. live there tonight, rich? >> well, when you look at the criticism that has come to russia from the secretary of state today and over the last couple of days, certainly over the last few hours, it has gotten even sharper. the argument that the secretary of state is making according to a briefing that he gave down in mar-a-lago in the florida where the president is is essentially that it was the russian government that was supposed to be the guarantor of the cease-fire and of the regime of

bashar al-assad of getting rid of its chemical weapons the secretary of state saying russia has failed in its responsibility to deliver on those commitments and either russia has been complicit or simply incompetent in delivering i thought end of the agreement. this by the way, shep is only one week before the secretary of state is scheduled to travel to moscow to meet with his counterpart. there may be other meetings involved with that state department officials say they are still moving forward with the schedule, and trying to figure out what those meetings will involve. officials also say they're going there to start a relationship with russia and also examine potential areas where the united states and russia may work together so long as it benefits the united states. but given this language of the last few hours, the last couple of days, and the attack that's happened this evening, there could be some questions moving forward as to whether the russians would want the united states. we're waiting to hear back because state department officials are saying they're moving in forward, and

anticipate that trip will go on. the you also talk about the comments of the secretary of state maid regarding assad he basically said steps are under way when he was asked whether the president will organ international coalition to remove him. they are telling me he is talking about a geneva process that has been in place with the united nations and the idea would be to first defeat isis, secondly begin to repair the area, return it to local control, and then from there work with resettling refugees and work on the political process from there, but when you take the statement from today where the secretary of state said that the future is uncertain, clearly for assad's role, and the acts that he has taken would seem there would be no role for him to govern the people of syria, that is a much different tone and aggressive tone than what we heard last week when the secretary was he basically said the long term status because up to syrian to

decide. one more thing about the russian government has to say about all of this the russian government spokesman a few hours back did mention i don't think it's correct to say about unconditional support, unconditional support is not possible in a current world. talking about bakery bashar al-assad, though he did go on the say bashar al-assad and his army is the legitimate power, but much more aggressive tone for the state department and secretary of state over the last week and a very great focus only russia here and the role it has to play according to the state department in the chemical attack in syria. >> rich, thank you very much. let's bring in john now associate editor of the wall street journal would say that is complicated would barely be the scratch the surface. the russians, the syrians, the united states, isis, and al

qaeda. >> china, north korea, domestic politics if you want to spread the net really wide about what messages are being sent here, look, we can extrapolate too much, this is a message clearly to assad not the use the chemical weapons. administration angry that he has them. they were supposed to be gone after 2013. angry at russia. that's take clear medication. i think we could extrapolate a little bit and take a little bit further and see think through how it is that other nations are going to be respond the this. yes, he's about to sit down with tomorrow and talk with china about north korea. so now the chinese see that it's a president who is willing to use weapons. are the chinese now going to be more willing to put the pressure on north korea to reduce its nuclear program? something the u.s. has been after for years. other chinese who have 5,000 year history are good at playing five dimensional chess, are they

going to look at this and say the we knew the americans are wig to use power. we've seen that. >> george bush lobbying us, to put pressure on north korea for his entire administration started two wars. so we've seen that the americans are able to use force. will the chinese really change their policy toward north korea? they have a lot of vested interest in take buffer state between them and not just south korea, but u.s. forces in asian and frankly the rest of the world. message sent to russia, look, get serious we need to do something here. you're not going to have court blanch. on the other hand we're not kind of in it. we've bombed what happens is syria doesn't relent, do we bomb a second time. >> the answer to that is yes said keane. >> the russians are making their he a calculus here. they know the american public is not going to support ground

troops in a extensive way in syria. hundreds there now supporting remember groups, but not tens of thus of groups in syria the american public is against is that idea. so russia that is card to play as well. >> domestic politics as well, the president his approval rating had been falling. a number of different matters domestic riddle giving him all kinds of trouble. it's a complicated world. he hatred he inherited a mess. what is the effect domestically for the president? >> he's been fighting this image as a pro russian president he's now taking an action in syria that's clearly contrary to the interests of russia. he has a secretary of state who is calling the russians either complicit or simply incompetent in their ability to cause assad to eliminate his chemical weapons as they were supposed to do after the 2013 agreement. on the other hand you have a

president also who saw not 85 people killed by chemical weapons, this time around, but 1400 killed in 2013. but lobbied obama not to send in troops, not to bomb, not to get the u.s. involved in syria. so what changed now? domestic politics affected his thinking? is this a way of showing he's not soft on russia? is this a way of showing that those who are criticizing him as thee investigations get under way about his campaigns possible involvement with russian surveillance of the u.s. campaigns and hacking of the campaigns, whether or not that happens, we deponent know. these investigations will determine that, but here is a president going out and doing something again contrary to russian interest that might that might curry some favor. you see john m mccain pricing these moves. >> marco rubio. >> yeah go further. take out the entire air force.

you need to make some major steps not just this one, but supporting him these have been critic particulars of president there were. >> no domestic politics within his own party which has been divided. this could be a unifying force. >> that's right and it's not just his own party, but the american people who likes to wake up in the morning to photographs on the front page of babies that have been killed by sarin gas. by -- by an administration a regime in syria that does not seem the care about civilian casualty. mind you though, they are not this is not meant to be cynical, but factual, these kinds of atrocities have been happening not all chemical. some of the these are barrel bombs, literally barrels also explosives. >> war crimes. >> that obliterate the area. tens of thousands of casualties over the years. you know these have been atrocities ongoing for some ty

type, but it captures the favor of the attention of those not just in the republican party, but people who say look, there is a line. and enough is enough, and a signal should be sent to assad. whether or not it's effective matters, but at least the signal should be sent. >> from our corporate cousin at the wall street journal thank you. >> torn to drawer ross and special advisor to the secretary of state hillary clinton. also a fox news contribute thank you. >> my pleasure. >> there action, although the president says to send a message to bashar al-assad you must stop, certainly is not without risk. your assessment of it. >> well, look, you have a step that's been taken. i think everyone you've talked to the message it send to assad. i think one of the things to keep in mind is it sends messages to a lot of other actors as well. it also establishes a certain

principle. the principle is you cannot use chemical weapons with impunity. if we had not responded now, if the response had been only rhetorical the message would go out to every other leader that you know what, if you want to change the balance of power, you want to use chemical weapons you can do that and there's no consequence. well that makes this world a whole lot less stable, more dangerous and ultimately talents our security. so number one this is a important principle to be establishing not just a known assad. not just a message for me iranians and north koreans. when the administration says something you better pay attention. now, is there a risk of escalation. yes. bashar al-assad may choose to say, you know, we're not going to cowed by this. he may choose to test the administration. however, when he thinks about

whether or not he's going to test the administration, he has to consider whether or not he runs the risk of actually losing his air force, in which case whatever advantages he has those disappear. the iranians could choose to do something more against our presence in syria, our presence in iraq. if they do that they're also playing the fire. they also have to ask themselves the question do they really want to put themselves in a position where they weaken what we might be doing against isis, which also threatens them. the russians might say let's test the americans, but do they really want to do that right now, particularly when this is an accord that they, the agreement in 2013 was something that they worked out with us they were one of the? guarantors and either the syrians lied to them, in which case they look pretty bad or in fact, they turned the blind eye to it with the secretary of state was saying in terms of being complicit or being i

incompetent, i would say they're in a position where it looksty assad may have taken advantage of them. now is this something that they want to be adopting as well, or is this the moment where in fact, the administration could be going to the russians and saying maybe this really is the time to try to produce a general cease-fire and a real political process in syria. the president said tonight that this is a good time to try to end the conflict in syria. this could be, in fact, an opening to do that because it demonstrates that? sensitivity u.s. when it's looking at syria even focusing on isis, we just demonstrated we understand that we can't turn a blind eye to what he's doing, if we do the consequence is you're going to end up creating more recruits for isis. so here may be a moment as well with whatever the risks are, this may also be a moment where you have done something oncology our part that demonstrates we're prepared not just to be rhetorical about syria and that could give the russians an

incentive to say we've achieved what we need to in syria, maybe this is a time to produce a real political process foster first file. >> history stays russians often want some degree of compromise within these negotiations. they're very focused among other things object crimea. is that an area where the united states might be able to give and take. >> well, there's no doubt they would love us to lift the sanctions. this economy is hurting you've seen a decline in the purchasing power in russians. seen demonstrations against corruption, which was i think a surrogate issue to challenge torque express dissatisfaction with the state of the economy. so no doubt the russians would be interested in that. the question is whether or not we need at this point to be broadening in a sense the aperture. do we need to go beyond syria or has this stipulate step the president has taken in response if the something that the

syrians did that crossed a threshold, again, and again it's not just -- barrel bombs alleges horrific as they are, barrel bombs are not chemical weapons. chemical weapons 0 weapon of mass destruction, we want to perish a prohibition against against their use. it's a 19 goes beyond syria so within the russians i think we can folks o focuses on this. from pursuant's standpoint, he's got an air air base in the syria. he's expanding the naval facility, they have an defense capability that creates an umbrella over the eastern mediterranean. he's seen as an arbiter as a future. he's seen as a major player in the middle east. he doesn't need to have an ongoing conflict in syria that begins the drain the russians. so again this could be a moment not so much where you look for the broader grand deal outside of syria, but you focus on something here maybe in the aftermath of producing something here if the russians will show

that for the first time they will actually impose on assad, something they haven't done yet in the conflict. if they do that, maybe we're in a different place with them as well. >> drawer dennis roth with perspective from washington. great to see you, thank you. reaction coming in from around the world gotten a statement eight israeli prime minister as the sun is just rising in israel. this is a video of the strike tonight. this from the israeli prime minister quoting if both word ask action, president trump set clear and strong message that take use and spread of chemical weapons will not be tolerated tolerate. israeli supports his message and this will resolve will resonate in tear ran, and elsewhere. jennifer griffen was first with the news for us. she's live at her post in the

pentagon. how could this affect the effort to take bachrach can a? rack a can a and syria which is a isis strong hold. >> we're told by u.s. defense officials tonight that they did not move any of the 1,000 u.s. troops who are on the ground in syria out of syria in advance of this attack. remember that that operation to retake raqqah to take raqqah the isis accommodate is, held up right now because the fact turkish referendum. the u.s. military and its coalition allies want to arm the kurdish fighters, members of syrian defense forces that u.s. has trained with heavy military equipment, and as we've reported in the past the turkish government is opposed to to th that. they're threatened by the kurds being armed. they so as part of negotiations the u.s. and the coalition has agreed to wait

until after this sensitive turkish referendum for the president. so at this point in time this is not going to directly affect the attempt to retake raqqah. the u.s. military efforts remember there are marines based not far from raqqah with heavy artillery systems, but they are in a holding position. we also know that there are u.s. army rangers who have been positioned up to the northern border near turkey separating several tides sides, keeping the turks at bay. russians involved up there. from our understanding this will not task efforts to retake raqqah but you're talking about the principle of unintended consequences here, this is war after all and this is being described as to proportional strike by pentagon and by the national security advisor, it can have unintended consequences and it's not clear how the

iranians are going to react. there are 100,000 iranian forces inside iraq. of course 6,000 u.s. troops on the ground. so very dicey situation. very close quarters, and we'll just have to see in the days ahead. >> before this happened, we had word that something was in the works, and we received word pretty early that they were trying to avoid any chemical weapons storage areas in these strikes, right? >> well, it's interesting. we actually did know that this was in the works, and we were for operational reasons ongoing we could not go on the air and report when we knew when we knew it earlier. we did not want to jeopardize any aspect of the operation. we knew that there were two u.s. destroys in the eastern mediterranean, 70 tomahawks on board they would be used at part of this targeting. we knew that the base was one of the intended targets. it ended up being the only intended target, but what we've

learned tonight from pentagon officials, they told us that in fact, the u.s. military took great -- made great efforts to avoid any of the suspected chemical weapon storage points. before 2013, chemical weapons were stored by the assad regime at the base, there are still some chemical agents stored there. if the u.s. military and u.s. tomahawks excuse me, had struck those chemical storage points, we are told that in fact, it would not have had this effect of ak chemical bomb, if you will but the u.s. military did not want to be accused of striking that area and then if there were any toxins released or any complaints about anyone suffering, they just didn't -- they wanted to avoid that altogether. they also wanted to avoid the russian planes that were on the area -- on the area base at the

air base. we understand there were more than a dozen possibly russian aircrafts. not clear if they were syrian owned or by the russian military, but the russians have kept attack helicopters at that base, and we are told by captain jeff davis here at the pentagon they made great efforts to avoid any russian equipment at the abates base, and of course as we've been reporting the u.s. military alerted about one hour in advance their russian counterparts through the deconfliction hotline that they've set up in recent weeks. >> thanks very much. turning to josh letterman now. josh, a rel sort of dizzying turn for this administration. that he did a 180 on syria, and they say it's really all based on this video from this chemical attack. >> that's right, shep, and you know, secretary seriously came out in mar-a-lago today and made

an interesting point. he said this is not an indication that our posture and syria has changed that our future military activity there is different than it was the day before. but of course, that's not how this works. it's inescapable to avoid the fact that today the u.s. deepened its involvement in syria's civil war very substantially by going after assad's force something the u.s. has not done throughout the civil wore iowa and proxy russia and -- helping side assad. and here's one of the reasons that secretary tillerson is trying to communicate this isn't changing anything. you have u.s. backed rebels oakland who are both interested in out of thing the state group do syria. they are begging the u.s. for more commitment, more air cover, to lethal weaponry and other assistance, including u.s. troops there to help them turn the tied against assad.

so far the u.s. has been reluctant to take a lot of those steps, and now you're going to see as a result of this increased hopes and expectations among u.s. backed rebels in syria. so you see the secretary of state and other trump administration officials trying to downplay expectations for a potential increase in the long term in u.s. involvement in this syria civil war. >> do we know the degree to had the possible ramifications of this, any possible explanation might have been game planned? i meant he is escalation. >> this is a one off, there a response to a specific incident the chemical weapons attack and take barring any future action from president assad to use chemical weapons, nobody should necessarily expect that the u.s. the going to continue with more strikes. of course the u.s. is leaving open all of its options to take further action, but a lot of emphasis here this this is a proportional response to a troubling incident that violated

u. u.n. resolutions and other laws, and it should be seen in take context and not as far as a broader ramp up of the u.s. military involvement. >> do you have rocketing on responses from the russians or any indication of how they're handling this. >> so far we haven't seen any interactions between the russians and the u.s. responding to this. we do know in a syrian state television tonight has been calling this essentially a provocation by the u.s. and also saying that there were losses. we don't know if that means that there were syrian personnel who were lost or if they're referring to u.s. aircraft and other physical assets that the u.s. says were damaged by this strike. and we're also seeing other countries now start to respond, including some western allies that are throwing some support behind this. a lot of members of congress also weighing in to support this, but so far silence from moscow. >> good to talk to you josh, thank you.

>> thanks. >> so steven hayes now, it ed for in chief number of the weekly standard. you're hearing president trump that upset in a the russians weren't acknowledging the attack. >> interesting talking to folks who have been surprising president trump to understand ever tonight. one of the things he was most upset about was we had intelligence that the russians were aware of what the syrians were doing at the time that the chemical weapons attacks were launched, and in days since as u.s. efforts to approach the russians on back channels to get them to acknowledge the syrian role that this was in fact, the syrian government doing this, were met with sort of denials from the russians, which is not consistent at all with what our intelligence has. >> i would say, i mean, the video -- our intelligence sores tell us that as this was happening the united states could see from air resources the attack dropping these weapons on people.

and then they could actually see the men, women, and children reacting as if they had just been hit by sarin gas, that in fact, all of this is essence shot of videotape and available to show the russians and that even at that point, the russians were denying what the cameras so obviously pointed out. >> correct, that's exactly right, and it was both that public denial from assad that the russians seem today seemed to buy and also private denials in this diplomatic back that they suggest they didn't have any idea. that this could have been the syrian give the. we had good intelligence on th that, the that the russians knew this from the outset. that was one of the many factors i think that was frustrating to president trump and his advisors that re-they looked at what was happening and they looked at the returns response and of course we know about russia's backing of assad and the fact that he's got troops there the fact that he's been aiding assad in that he is attack going back for a long time. >> without the russian air

defense system, without the russian fighters, without the russian assistance, bashar al-assad chances of being able to suppress his people further would be greatly diminished. in any indication the russians might be pulling away from the support of assad and that the brutal civil war might wind down to some degree. >> there aren't any indications of this quite yet. there aren't expectations that president trump will talk to vladimir putin in the coming days, but this is one of the things that as they gamed this out that the trump team was hopefully that this would send a pledge not to know bashar al-assad but also to putin and others in the region saying this has crossed the line, this is not accepting and to to get them to rethink this. you heard that from secretary of a state tillerson before these strikes where he said we really need russia and iran to rethink their roles in helping bashar al-assad kill his own people. at the time, i think that struck some of us as somewhat naïve.

i mean, we know what russia's been up there for a long time we know what the iranians will doing. and it was it seemed naïve to suggest that they would rethink this. with you no there's been action and i think as a result of this action you'll have the united states government pressing our allies and potential partners in a coming coalition and others to put pressure on the russians, put pressure o iranians to back off of their support for bashar al-assad and be very interesting to watch the coming days what assad himself does. how he reacts, what he says and does a. if he shows any indication that he's been somehow chasened by this action. >> you mentioned that syria is sort of client state of iran, that they work in large part at iranian direction and then they have the russians backing them up as well. that's quite a grouping of three all sort of setting themselves up against the united states. what level of concern is there

that one of those three actors might take further action that would require the united states to take further action and might draw us further into this syrian civil war? >> well, this is one of the main concerns, and i'm told that the trump team as they contribute it exactly what this response would be, spent more time talking about that, about the potential reaction, potential of an escalation than any other subject that they discussed. i think that view is that there's a low probability of any kind of direct response from assad, from the russians, from the iranians but of course it's possible. maybe even likely that there would be some kind of asymmetrical response, perhaps syria and iran would act validate hess bow will a and potentially attack u.s. partners or allies mod to send some message that they've seen what we've done and that this is a response. >> do you have reporting that would suggest how far it is the

united states is willing to go for instance this was a message to bashar al-assad to stop murdering his people with sarin gas. by way of example, should bashar al-assad do the same sort of thing in the next couple of days the united states has air assets this see that, would the united states then act again, and if so to what degree? >> this is not based on my reporting, but just judging from what we've seen today, it would be highly un-liable that if bashar al-assad were to do this again, that the united states wouldn't respond in a similar fashion. i do think that one of the reasons that you saw u.s. officials sort of back balk, talk regime change in return to their earlier talking points was because they didn't want this to be seen as a message to bashar al-assad saying we are now coming for you. we're looking to do decapitation strikes. or anything but i wouldn't be surprised in the coming days if you didn't see president trump

articulate a policy that's more forward leaning with stephen hayes from the weekly standard, it's great to see stephen. thank you very much. so, the action has been taken and now waiting for reaction coming in around the world. >> it's midnight on the east coast, 9:00 p.m. on the west coast. i'm shepard smith in new york and this is fox news channel continuing coverage of the united states tomahawk missile strike. more than 50 of them on syrian targets inside a syrian air base. those actions taking place just about 8:00 eastern time tonight, 5:00 on the west coast in the dark of night, 3:00 in the morning in syria. the president has since spoken and said this was to send a clear message to the syrian dictator bashar al-assad that the attacks on his own people, the sarin gas attack that killed more than 80 including 27 young children and injured hundreds more, that that sort of chemical