success. they are in our prayer and thoughts. we are waiting on a pentagon press briefing and stay with the fox news channel for continuing and live news coverage and the pentagon will have the press coverage in mere moments. thanks for being with us. >>we're awaiting a news conference at the pentagon where we're told that military officials will lay out the specifics of these strikes. let's bring in fox news national security correspondent, who's standing at the pentagon. general madison is just stepping up. we'll go do that live. >> civilized people showing

calloused disregard by using chemical weapons to murder children, women, and other innocents. we find these atrocities inexcusable. the president has the authority to use military force overseas in united states national interest. we have vital national interest in a worsening catastrophe in syria and the use and proliferation of chemical weapons. last year in response to a chemical weapons attack against civilians and to signal the regime to cease chemical weapons use, we targeted the military base from which the weapons were delivered. earlier today, president trump directed the u.s. military to conduct operations with our allies to destroy the syrian

regime chemical weapons research development and production capabilities. tonight, france, the united kingdom and united states took decisive action. clearly, the assad regime did not get the message last year. this time our allies and we have struck harder. together, we have sent a clear message to assad and its murderous lieutenants that they should not perpetrate another chemical weapons act. the 70 nations in the coalition remain committed to defeating isis and syria. the strikes tonight separately demonstrates international resolve to prevent chemical weapons to be used on anyone, under any circumstances, in conservation of international law. i want to emphasize that these strikes are directed at the

syrian regime. we have gone to great lengths to avoid civilian and foreign casualties. it is a time for all civilized nations to urgently unite in ending the syrian civil war. in accordance at the chemical weapons prevention prohibiting the use of such weapons, we urge responsible nations to condemn the assad regime and join us in our firm resolve in chemical weapons from being used again. he will provide a military update. >> thank you. i am joined by devon parker. i'll address this strike from the military dimension.

at 9:00 pm eastern standard time, our forces were integrated throughout the planning and execution of the operation. the targets that were struck and destroyed were specifically associated with the syrian regime chemical weapons program. the first target was a scientific research center located in the greater damascus area. this military facility was a syrian center for the research, development, production, and testing of chemical and biological warfare technology. the second target was a chemical weapons storage facility. we assessed that this was the primary location of syrian and precursor production equipment. the third target, in the vicinity of the second target, contained the chemical weapons

storage facility and an important command post. u.s., british, and naval air forces were involved in the operation. i won't be more specific this evening. before we take questions, i would like to address how this evening's strike were qualitatively and quantitatively different than 2015. this evening, we conducted strikes with two allies on multiple sites the that will result in a long-term degradation of syrian's capability to deploy chemical and biological weapons. important infrastructure was destroyed, which will result in a setback for the syrian regime. they will lose years of data, equipment, and chemical weapons precursors. it was not only a strong message

to the regime that their actions were inexcusable, but inflicted massive damage without risk to innocent civilians. and with that, we would be happy to take your questions. >> mr. secretary, first of all, did the u.s. suffer any losses initially? and more broadly, the president in his remarks said the u.s. and its allies are prepared to sustained this operation until the syrians stop using chemical weapons. does this u.s. and its partners will continue military operations beyond this initial operation tonight? >> that will depend on mr. assad, should he decide to use more chemical weapons in the future. and of course, the powers that have signed the chemical weapons prohibition have every reason to challenge assad, if should he choose to violate that. but right now, this is a

one-time shot, and i believe it has sent a very strong message to dissuade him and deter him from doing this again. we'll brief on that in the morning. we want to give you a full brief in the morning. right now we have no reports of losses. >> thank you for doing that. have you seen any retaliation from the russians or the iranians? and how long do you think this operation could last? is a matter of hours or days, or could it go longer than that? >> yeah, we did have some initial surface to air missile activity from the syrian regime. that's the only retaliatory action that we're aware of at this time. and the nature of the operation, we've completed the targets that were assigned to the united states central command. those operations are complete. >> could you talk a little bit

more about your concern that you've expressed earlier in the week about russian escalation? general dunford, were you able to talk to your russian counterpart? what are your concern about escalation? and if we're permitted to ask your british counterpart a question, i would like to know the russian involvement in that, how that russian involvement played a role in your decision to enter this coalition this evening? >> let me address the last point first. they're not going to get out in front of their president and prime minister respectfully, so the national messages will be provided from their capitals here soon. but with regard to the russian concerns, we identified these

targets and used our normal channels to work through the air space issues. we did not do any coordination with the russians nor did we prenotify them. >> just a couple of days ago you said you're still assessing the intelligence on the suspected attack. at this point, do you know what the chemical was used in that attack? and also, what is your evidence it was actually delivered by the syrian regime? >> say the last part again. >> what is your evidence it was delivered by the syrian regime? >> i am confident the syrian regime conducted a chemical attack on innocent people in this last week. yes, absolutely confident of it. and we have the intelligence level of confidence that we needed to conduct the attack. >> as far as the actual chemical used, do you know what it was?

was it nerve agent, chlorine? >> we are very much aware of one of the agents. there may have been more than one agent used. we are not clear on that yet. we know at least one chemical agent was used. >> i just want to clarify, you notified the russians ahead of time before the operation began >>i'm going to be clear. the only communication that is took place specifically with this operation before the targets were struck was the normal deconfliction of the air space. >> you mentioned the syrian air defenses had engaged. the syrian state tv is saying they shot down 13 tomahawk missiles. can you refute that? >> i can't tell you the results. the time on target was about an

hour ago and we came straight up here to give you the best information we have right now. tomorrow morning, we'll give you more detailed operational update. >> the air strikes is over? >> this wave of air strikes is over. >> secretary, i just wanted to follow up on what you said about the legal basis for this strike. could you talk a little bit more about that? in your testimony the other day, it sounded like you were saying that a potential strike would somehow be linked to self-defense and the presence of american forces in syria. and also, regarding whether or not there will be future action or additional strikes, you said that it would depend on whether or not the outside government conducts future chemical contacts. can you explain more about what would be the threshold for that? because there were repeated chemical attacks between the april 2017 attack and today.

and would you consider a small-scale chlorine attack sufficient to launch additional strikes? >> right now i'll just tell you we're in close consultation with our allies. we review all the evidence all the time. it is difficult, as you know, to get evidence out of syria. but right now we have no additional attacks planned. as far as the legal authority under the article ii of the constitution, we believe the president has every reason to defend vital american interests. >> what were some of the targeting considerations or difficulties involved in going after chemical facilities? how long did the operation take the plan? and last year's strikes were described as proportional, moderate. how would you describe this year's in contrast to that? >> we chose these particular

targets to mitigate the risk of civilian casualties, number one. we chose these targets because they were specifically associated with the syrian chemical program. and we look at the location relative to other populated areas. these targets were carefully selected and being specifically associated with the chemical program. we're going to -- there were manned aircraft involved. i won't give you any details until tomorrow morning, but we will do that at that time. >> up until yesterday, you said, "i cannot tell you that we have evidence." so when did you become confident that a chemical attack happened? >> yesterday. >> yesterday, after you said that? >> yes. >> and then second, you talked

about targeting the chemical weapons infrastructure of al-assad. if there were any chemical weapons or agents in those facilities that you targeted, i assume they would create health has in the region or no? >> yeah. we don't believe -- we did very close analysis, as the chairman pointed out. we did everything we could in our intelligence assessment and our planning to minimize to the maximum degree possible any chance of civilian casualties. we are very much aware this is difficult to do in a situation like this, especially when the poison gas that assad assured the world he had gotten rid of obviously still exists. so it is a challenging problem set, and we had the right military officers dealing with it. >> and you can confirm there's going to be no leak into the air? >> of course not.

we'll do our best. >> when the surface to air defens defenses engaged, did they become a target and did u.s. air power and other assets take out those targets? >> i'm not aware of any response we took. we'll gather overnight. we tried to leave the united states central command alone here tonight. they were quite busy. we'll through the night gather the operational detail. >> last year you changed the protection levels the for the syrian troops or u.s. troops in syria. have you changed protection levels based off of responses from russia? >> the commander always takes prudent measures, especially in an environment they were in tonight. so they did make adjustments. >> you didn't tell the russians what the targets were?

>> that is absolutely correct. we did not coordinate targets or any planning with the russians. that kind of information, just to put it in perspective, is passed routinely every day and night. they may not have found anything unusual about that. >> can you talk a little bit about any iran targets that you initially considered and why you may have not gone to them? and could your colleagues explain exactly the sort of contribution that you've made to tonight's operation? >> yeah, again, our allied officers are here out of respect for the fact that they were part of the mission from planning all the way through to the political decision taken, and once their

heads of state speak tomorrow, then that'll be the initial statement from those capitals. but as far as any other targets, we looked at targets specifically designed to address the chemical weapons threat that we have seen manifested. the whole world has watched in horror, these weapons being used. those were the only targets that we were examining for prosecution. >> you mentioned three target areas that were struck. how can you be sure from now on these are all of the target areas or production facilities for chemical weapon that is the syrians are using? and do you believe there are additional locations? >> that's a great question. we had a number of targets to select from. and again, we did not select those that had a high risk of collateral damage, and

specifically a high risk of civilian casualties. the modeling was done to make sure that we mitigated the risk of any chemicals the in those facilities and mitigate the risk of civilian casualties. we selected these based on the significance of the weapons program and the location. >> it seems like this strike tonight would you describe pretty limited, not too dissimilar from last year. i know there was three targets this time instead of one, but it still seems more targeted and more specific than what i think a lot of people were expecting. can you walk us through your decision to -- the concern about escalation with usual affect your decision to keep this more targeted? and moving from there, how much assurance can you give us that this is going to do what the strike last year didn't do,

which is basically to stop president assad from using chemical weapons again? >> nothing is certain in these kinds of matters. however, we useed a little over double the weapons this year as last year. it was done on targets we believe were selected to hurt the chemical weapons program. we were not out to expand this. we were precise and proportionate. but at the same time, it was a heavy strike. >> mr. secretary, prior to the attack, how important was it to get the support from the allies, not only from an intelligence point of view, but also from the countries themselves? >> it's always important that we act in a unified way in

something that is such an atrocity as this as we've observed goings on in syria. but i will also tell you these allies, the americans, french, the british, we have operated together through thick and thin, good times and bad. and this is a very, very well-integrated team. wherever we operate, we do so with complete trust in each other and the belief that one another will be there when the chips are down. so it's important and it's a statement about the level of trust between our nations. >> let us know whether the syrians were able to hide a lot of these chemical weapons in the last several days because there was so much talk? did that give them time to move weapons? and you were saying you had information about one of the chemicals.

we're assuming that's chlorine. if you can clarify that. >> i'm not aware of any specific actions that the syrians took to move chemical weapons in the last couple of days. >> we're very confident that chlorine was used. we are not ruling out sarin right now. >> a question about targets that you first examined. it sounds like you went after facilities and not the actual weapons, as you indicated earlier, to minimize accidental risk to civilians. in the targets that remain, can you -- >>i think it's too early to make that assessment right now. >> thank you. general dunford, did any russian defenses engage u.s. british or

french ships or missiles? and were any of the strikes intended to kill ba sar -- bashar al-assaal-assad? >> those will be details we'll pull together for you in the morning. >> the targets tonight were specifically designed to degrade the syrian war machine's ability to create chemical weapons and to set that back right now. there were no attempts to broaden or expand that target set. and ladies and gentlemen, thank you for coming in this evening. based on recent experience, we fully expect a significant disinformation campaign over the coming days by those who have aligned themselves with the assad regime. and in an effort to maintain

transparency and accuracy, my assistant for public affairs and the director of the joint staff here in washington will provide a brief of known details tomorrow morning, we anticipate about 9:00 in this same location. but thank you again for coming in this evening, ladies and gentlemen. >> all right. let's go now to john roberts, who's monitoring the situation at the white house. >> good evening to you. and the president continues to monitor the situation, as the bombs continue to fall and the missiles continue to strike. and tonight the white house releasing a call for action on syria, calling on syria and syria's patrons to declare all aspects of syria's chemical weapons program, destroy the remaining chemical weapons

stockpiles and dismantle the program and allow access to the un weapons team to investigate the attack in douma last saturday. a little more granularity in what led them to believe that there was in fact a chemical weapons attack in douma last saturday. they clearly document victims suffering from asphyxiation and foaming at the mouth. intelligence that indicates syrian officials coordinated what seems to be chlorine in douma. eyewitness accounts reporting that a helicopter was circling douma at the time of the attack. photos of bombs that were developed, and doctors and aid

organizations on the ground reporting the strong smell of chlorine and described symptoms consistent with the exposure to sarin gas. the white house sending a sharp message to russia. the united states will not be fooled by another russian disinformation campaign. tried to deflect the blame. and due to its inability or refusal to curb assad's crimes, russia must assume responsibility for assad's behavior. the president did this several times in the past week and tonight, saying ultimately putin is responsible for what happened in syria last saturday and ultimately responsible for the american response tonight. a little bit more color on what happened this week.

the president made the decision about taking military action much earlier this week. it was then up to his team at the white house to provide him with the information he thought would best address the situation here. and you heard them lay that plan all out. and pence, the vice president, went to lima, peru, on the president's behalf. the president cancelled the trip earlier this week. pence was at a dinner for the summit of the americas. suddenly went back to the hotel where he made secure telephone calls and told that he tried to reach the senate minority leader schumer several times but he was on a plane and could not be reached. but as soon as he landed, the vice president got in touch with him to inform him of what was happening. you can expected the president talked to theresa may of britain

and macron of france. >> let's get reaction from sarah carter. she's president of the security studies group. and jim hanson and retired colonel douglas mcgregor. what is your take tonight? the goal here is to provide a strong deterrent of use of chemical weapons. >> well, this is a difficult situation. syrian president assad said he first launched chemical attacks in 2013. i was talking to a doctor when the attack was launched and i remember the horror they were facing then. we haven't seen it as a

deterrent since then. but now we see three nations joining together, france, great britain, and the united states, sending a strong message. proliferation is what we're really concerned about here. if we're concerned about our national security risk, then this is the reason why the president did this. he was standing on the principle that he told them, if you cross this red line with me, i have to react. and eventually he did. so we're going to have to wait and see how this unfolds because we don't know what russia's reaction is going to be to this. a lot of people are concerned. but bullies are bullies. but we still don't know. >> well, i find the whole thing perplexing. first of all, just a week after the president announces his intention to withdrawal troops

from syria suddenly, decides to launch a chemical attack. seems very odd. then we see sarin and chlorine gas used together. that's never happened before. that's the first in the history of chemical warfare. it doesn't make any sense. finally, we said, we didn't really inform the russians. but we know the german press has told us over the last 24 hours of consistent back channel reports between washington and moscow. so i'm quite obvious we made the russians aware of what was going on and they got out of the way. and we picked targets that in retrospect may turn out not to be what we thought. >> south sudan has had a four-year civil war that's killed tens of thousands of people. entire villages very burned, boys and girls locked in straw huts and lit on fire. there are atrocities committed

every day all over the world, including in china. and yet we go in again with a military strike a year after a previous military strike. and i guess it feels good because there are horrible things happening there. but what do we really accomplish here tonight in syria? this is not why donald trump got elected in my view. >> but president trump delivered a warning and vladimir putin, assad, and the iranians all ignored that warning. he delivered on the promise he would retaliate. and it was the right thing to do. we also have a strategic interest in iran not becoming a land bridge to the mediterranean. >> that helped them. >> that's a bigger story. but what president trump did here is he delivered the correct message to the correct parties. what was blown up, it's important but not the most important thing. the fact that we will deliver on our promises as the united

states. i thought it was great that we put the band back together and acted in concert. that matters to the world to sew that we are now a coalition of some of the strongest countries. >> absolutely. and that's something else they're very concerned about is how iran is moving across the middle east. >> and how did that start? a lot of dominoes falling in the middle east. and sometimes what feels good in the moment, the iraq war, which i was in favor of, then four years later, what's isis? >> how we get out matters. >> you're so smart. why did assad decide to do this now, sebastian, given the fact that donald trump -- his instinct is let's get the heck out of there, trillions of dollars spent in the middle east, china is on the rise, we don't want to get bogged down

there. and then the attack happens. why did that unfold that way? >> laura, i know a lot of people are queasy tonight, but look, colonel mcgregor is being obnoxiously obtuse. this is a battlefield where chemical weapons are on the loose with multiple actors, many of them jihadists. this is a regime that has committed mass murder. the idea that this is irrelevant to america is so astrategic it -- but we have to assert our moral clarity. you do not get to use illegal chemical weapons against women and children. and i was in the white house a

year ago and i saw this intelligence. and guess what, colonel, it was the assad regime that did it. and when a four-star retired marine corps legend tells you that we've seen the intelligence and it was assad, everybody should take that to the bank. and shame on you for questioning general mattis retired? >> i don't think he meant what he said. >> you don't have the clearances and you haven't seen it. >> well, you would see surprise it had clearances that i have. will you please come down for a second? >> no, it's outrageous. >> we've been down this road before. >> not with this president. >> one at a time. sebastian, you can respond in one second. >> it was a milk production facility. we've had so much

misinformation. it is absolutely not clear what happened a year ago. i completely -- >>it is to me. you were outside the building. >> absolutely not. and i have spent my life in the military and i have seen intelligence manipulated repeatedly over the last 25, 26 years. >> i'm glad you know better than this president and his secretary of defense. >> i think that president trump needs to listen to the 50 million americans who voted for them. they did not vote for this and they didn't support this. >> let's talk about -- >>i'm glad you speak for all americans. that's very modest of you. >> well, let's talk about the war powers resolution because this always comes up every time we launch a military strike. and it allows the president to use force on a temporary basis. he can do it on his own, doesn't have to go to congress, very limited, narrow criteria. many say tonight that didn't

meet that criteria, that this type of strike actually does require congressional approval. i understand. i can actually make the argument for both sides. >> the war powers act has never been tested in the supreme court. so there's no ruling. >> thank god. they get most stuff wrong, too. >> it gives the president authority to do what he needs to do. if he think it is syrian regime dropping chemical weapons in a theater where there are u.s. troops on the ground is important enough to bomb them, he's got every right. he doesn't have to ask anybody. >> jim just brought up a really important point. we do have troops on the ground. we are still continue together train. people are still losing their lives in this region and they're fighting back against not just assad but iranian irgc on the

ground. when something like this happens, when we're in direct threat, and not just to our men and women on the ground but also our nation. we have to think of the national security implications and that's something a lot of people aren't thinking about. we have various rebel groups. >> did assad attack isis? >> you mean did assad attack isis? i heard a number of things. >> no. >> but right at the very beginning, the syrian army was being promised by the obama administration. >> it's a wild place. let's face it. iraq was a wild place that very few americans understand.

it is incredibly complex. there are so many different ethnic and tribal conflicts and isis offshoots that they fight among each other. they're not even on the same side. why didn't germany join us in this effort tonight? the biggest economy in the eu, such a critical ally of the united states? >> the same germany that told its ambassador in nato that he is banned from using the word "counterinsurgency" when discussing nato operations in afghanistan. that paper tiger. look, i have to comment on what sarah said. she's absolutely right. think of one thing. everybody's out there who's got issues, russia said the british did the chemical attack. do you want to believe that one

next? to anybody who has doubts, think about this one question. what happens when the outside regime uses chemical weapons, as secretary mattis said, and as he did last year, and i saw the intelligence, and we do nothing? what message does that send to iran, to assad, to proxies? because it sends a clear message as far as i'm concerned, that we got away with it and we can do it again. and where are they going to do it next? in jordan, one of our most important allies in the region. are they going to do it in tel-aviv. are we prepared to let that genie out of the bottle? i, as an american, as a taxpayer, as somebody who believes that these kinds of weapons are illegal and should be responded to, i'm not prepared to pay that price. >> i understand everything you're saying, sebastian. but my question is a simple one. we hear a lot about the

international community. the international community this, the international community that. we're doing that for international norms. it's the worst thing ever. ko of course, it's horrific. so where is the world community? it's great that we have britain and france. but where the heck is the world community? >> without american leadership, there is no action. >> yeah, we're out of money. we have no dough. it's not 1995 anymore, sebastian. >> so we let children get gassed. >> i'm not saying that. but if we have a country that is desperately in debt and getting weaker and weaker, at some point, somebody's going to have to pay the piper. and about two blocks from here, we've got blocks of people living out on the street, many of them are american veterans. >> what does that have to do with moral rectitude?

>> i'm playing devil's advocate here because at some point the american people are going to say, i'm not voting for this anymore that's what i'm worried about. >> president trump asked for a way out. he said, i want to leave syria. we gave the plan to the national security council for a way for the regional allies to start taking out of that. they don't have the capability to do this. >> don't have the capability? what are we talking about? >> and i can tell you, talking to sources in israel and saudi arabia, there has been a big difference. and i think that shift is important because what saudi arabia is most concerned isn't is iran. and they're willing to make amends with israel to some

extent. >> kushner has done great work on that and has gotten no credit. >> i think your viewers should understand that congress is a rubber stamp. it's not doing its job and hasn't for decades. it's comfortable sitting there and turning everything over to the president until something really bad happens at which time they will blame the white house. this is a facade. this is designed to look like something. it's nothing. >> what are you talking about? >> what we hit on the ground tonight is meaningless. >> how do you know that? >> without russia, assad would not exist. without russia -- >>are you talking about russian troops and facilities? >> yes. iranian troops are the critical

factor in the victory in syria. now, they are going to divide that country. it's over. >> so russia and iran are going to divide and we're not going to have anything to do with it. >> but i also think we were strategic in how we did this. if we target iran specifically -- >>sebastian, last word. >> just listen to what the president said. he said very clearly, we are not there to do some kind of intervention like in the gulf war back in 2003. we are there to make a stand against one of the most heinous forms of weapons known to man that are illegal? if we do nothing, then america as a nation starts to lose its meaning for what it represents. i know you believe in what that nation represents. you're a believer.

you believe in the eternal values that our founding fathers instilled in those founding documents. if it means anything today, we take this action. >> i think we could all pull out quotes. >> it's not funny. >> but, sebastian, don't get on your moral high horse with me. don't play that game with me tonight. >> it's not a joke. >> you're raising the flag of the framers. i can quote where they're warning us about get america entangled in foreign affairs over which we can have little effect. i'm not saying it's applicable here. but it's a complicated situation. let's go to jennifer griffin. >> well, laura, we just heard from defense secretary mattis and general dunford. they were joined by the top representatives of the militaries of france and britain. they addressed what the targets

were that were struck. and we now know that there were three targets struck by both manned airplanes as well as tomahawk and cruise missiles from the navy. in damascus, the scientific research center was struck and then a chemical weapons storage facility north of damascus and another chemical weapons storage facility. those are three sites we were told by the defense secretary that this wave of strikes is now other. it was a one-shot message. it was limited in nature. but defense secretary mattis did say about twice the amount of munitions were used this year as last year's strikes that struck one site where the syrian air force was based at the time. so this was designed to send a message. they were very careful to rule

out targets where civilians would have been killed. they also obviously were trying not to hit any of the russian air bases there. general dunford said that a deconfli deconfliction line was used. but it's not clear whether the russians actually engaged their air defenses. so they will have more bomb damage assessment tomorrow. defense secretary mattis said that they expected a disinformation campaign from the syrian regime and its allies. we've seen some of that in recent days. he said he was convinced yesterday that at least one

chemical agent was used. he said that they are certain that chlorine was used and it is possible if not probable that sarin was used. but as of yesterday, he was convinced that at least one chemical agent had been used by the syrian regime. he was very confident that the syrian regime was behind that chemical attack on april 4th. laura. >> jennifer griffin, thank you so much. and joining us now, chris and former intel officer. great to see you tonight. we always pray for our troops in harm's way on nights like tonight. let's get your sense on this. we were talking a little earlier about syria, like iraq, extremely complicated place. i think we in america think of the middle east all as one place. and it's the exact opposite of that. it's like 100 places. tell us about syria on the

ground and your view of what happened tonight. >> what happened tonight, laura, what i know and i can see is that this is not a u.s./syria operation. this is not the invasion of iraq and afghanistan. this is a very specific strike about the assad regime capacities to deliver chemical weapons. we cannot judge tonight. if the syrian regime decides to stop using it, operation is over. if there are reactions, which i anticipate not necessarily in damascus but other parts of syria, it's a different story. >> i would have to degree. and we did three precision attacks with facilities with sarin gas, which has a high density and burnoff rate. if they take this as the message it was meant to be, then this could resolve itself rather quick. optimistically, i don't think

so. i think assad will react and we'll see what happens tomorrow morning. >> chris, apparently, we hit a number of storage facilities. my question is, if we knew the -- this might be a really dumb question. but if you know the storage facilities are there, and we thought they destroyed the weapons previously, we launched our strikes last year, why didn't we do a preemptive strike? why did we wait until 40 people were killed? >> that's a great question. i learned a lot from being around him. but i think that we looked at the approach and the due diligence of having those walkups and having all those allies. we know what this is. and they've had plenty of opportunities. so right now the quantity of the strike has increased, so we're hitting those facilities designed to prevent those

aerial from doing it again. >> we talked about this earlier. my question is a simple one. we have an international consensus against the use of chemical weapons, sarin gas. i don't think -- can we think of a time in world history where sarin gas and chlorine were used at the same time? i don't think so. weird. that's just weird. we have an international consensus you can't use this. we've got children dying, these videos, where in the international community? why does the united states have to carry the load for everyone when the united states has a huge debt level? i'm not saying we don't have a moral duty, but we have a moral duty to the next generation and

the generation after that, that we don't hand them a country that is completely empty of financial future. so i'm concerned about that as the international consensus is clearly supposedly developed. >> laura, the consensus for tonight, we saw the united states, france, and england acting together. this is great. but it's only for tonight, because if you want to go further against the regime, you would be going against iran. so they are with us against the chemical weapons, but if we tell them we're going to put serious pressure against iran -- >>which is the real problem. >> we can't be with you against iran. this is where it becomes very complicated. let me take us to one other area in syria. we have 2,000 troops in the north eastern part of syria.

those troops are surrounded. my concern is what's the follow-up. what is it is status quo for these troops? now that we've administered one strike, we're eager to know if the enemy's going to strike back against our troops. >> mattis, description of his mindset. he's trying to slow the rush to a military strike in part because despite what nikki hayl hayley, he feels he needs more evidence to corroborate that he's responsible for the death. and he's concerned that a bombing campaign could lead to a wider conflict. now, that was i guess just yesterday, not two days ago. a lot of was apparently determined and confirmed over the last 24 hours. but just body language, reading him, do you think he seemed 100%

confident about what we saw tonight? i mean, to me, i just see mattis when he's all in. >> game on. >> just my body language. i could be totally wrong. he seemed like he was -- he's not saying he's not for it, but i don't know, it just seems like he's worried. he's a warrior. >> i think he had a lot on his table tonight. there's been a lot of speculation. today you heard reports coming out of syria and russia that this was all a result of doings of the uk. >> the british planted it all, yeah. >> there's mixed stories coming out. we don't want to go head to head with russia. i think that's why we had the attacks we did tonight where there were three precise hits.

he's a general. he's been around this all his life. anytime you have the situation, you're going to think about that. i think he doesn't want to be the guy that brings people in. >> all right, guys. thanks so much. joining us now from jerusalem is mike t mike. >> we know right now first of all that dawn is breaking, so we'll start to get a better idea of what the damage is. there are vehicles driving around the city of damascus right now with loud speaker blasting syrian nationalists songs. we've got people who say the night sky was lit up orange. loud blasts could be heard all over damascus. the smoke was concentrated in the eastern part of this city. syrian state tv claim that scientific research centers were hit. what we're hearing from the pentagon is what they're calling

a scientific research center was a research and development facility for those chemical weapons. we've also got out of syrian state tv, information that there was a strike in a military storage facility about 100 miles north of the city of damascus. state tv also claimed that syrian air defenses did engage at the beginning of this military strike. that was confirmed through the pentagon. general mattis said there was some activity from the surface to air resources inside of damascus at the beginning of this strike. syrian state tv also claim 13 tomahawks were shot down. that was not confirmed from the pentagon. simply that they just don't have information to that effect. dawn is breaking out. we're starting to get a better idea of the assessment of the damage. and we have a statement out of israel, of course with a very vested interest of what's going

on right now. the statement reads, last year president trump made clear in the use of chemical weapons crosses a red line. tonight under american leadership, the united states, france, and the united kingdom enforced that line. syria continues to engage in and provide a base for murderous actions, including those of iran that put its territory, forces, and leadership at risk. >> thank you so much. there's a lot to digest there. but one thing that we know is that hundreds of thousands of people have died in the syrian civil war. there are numbers that we certainly as a country haven't seen since world war ii. and there is a christian minority that previous administration and this administration have spoken about. they have an odd relationship with assad because he gave protection to the christian

minority. and similarly, the christians in syria i know are very worried about an escalation here because they are actually somewhat protected. what's your sense on that? >> the reason for why most christians in syria, specifically the leadership, because they are the ones that can speak -- >>and the pope of course. >> it's because they don't know what the outcome. whatever is the outcome is a problem for them. the worst outcome is -- >>iran. >> no, jihadists. >> isis, of course. >> they don't see an outcome where the united states and international community are going to help them. we missed that train unfortunately, not just in 2013 when we missed the red line, but since 2011, we would have been able to help in syria. once we withdrew from iraq, it

would have been very difficult. >> these are two very limited targeted so far at least with this last one, military strikes. but when you look back on some of the president's old tweets -- and tweets can really come back and bite you. in 2013, "we should stop talking, stay out of syria and other count countries that hate" these tweets go on and on, mostly from september 2013, of course when obama was still in. is this just the reality of being commander in chief? >> you want to hit hard and be

effective. >> yeah. there's no ground troops -- we have 2,000 people there. not to minimize that. that's a lot of troops. >> we have 2,000 on the ground there and many, many more in the region. and i'll back up what chris said. the president doesn't want to go in there. but he's a human being. and when you look on tv and you see the horrible images of these children and these women -- >>but as i said before, we can hold up what the bishops in south sudan have shown the world community and nobody cares. we can see this in nigh -- niger niger nigeria. but there's horrible stuff happening all over the world, not with probably chemical weapons, but with burnings, mutilations, mass rape. there's only so much america can do. and i'm speaking for what i

think are people out there that are worried. unlike the bushes and unlike romney and rubio, trump came out and said, "it was a mistake, and we should rethink how we deploy our forces middle east." >>i'll agree with that. and i think it's a brave new world the first time you sit in the oval office and open those briefs. that first day in when you get that first brief, it's a whole new story. >> i think this is a chapter what we've seen tonight. unfortunately, my statement will not be very positive. there will be other chapters. >> in the middle east? >> in syria. >> in iraq too? >> well, in syria first and that could lead to syria. >> stay with fox news for

continuing coverage. shannon bream and the fox news at night team. shannon, i know you have a great show tonight and i know your viewers and mine pray for our troops and our country. take it away. >> hello, welcome to fox news at night. i'm shannon bream in washington and this is a fox news letter. the coordinated attacks with our allies in response to president bashar assad. amid reports that explosions are lighting up the syrian capital. >> shannon, good evening to you and a senior administration official telling fox news a short time ago that the president tonight is pleased with the success of the