i bank welcome to assad" newsroom. -- anchor: welcome to "france 24 newsroom. 59 tomahawk cruise missile had a syrian air base. the destroyers from the mediterranean and the destination was the al-shayrat

airfield. washington said it was launched tuesday in regulation to the suspected chemical attack. from beirut. henry, walk us through what we know about the strike and any casualties and caused stop -- costs. henry: the u.s. launched approximately 59 tomahawk cruise missiles against al-shayrat airbase in homs province. the damage is said to be huge according to the syrian news agencies. approximately 70 military -- seven were killed military personnel killed. it is said that it is said that maybe nine civilians were killed. russian saying some of the missiles may have missed the basis. planes were to nine destroyed and hangars and other

equipment. molly: how significant is this airbase? henry: it is a significant airbase and one of the syrian stationst's modern air from which they carried out a lot of attacks in the past, including chemical weapons. fairly far away from any rebel held territory's, it had a lot of traffic of the syrian military operations. bunkers ofe to the the chemical weapons that were 2013 ofly given up in which and there's evident were not destroyed under the agreement reached that he or. molly: what are we seeing in terms of reaction? the syrian military has condemned the attack in friendly strong terms saying it is

counterintuitive -- in a fairly strong terms saying it is counterintuitive to fight terrorism and a step aback and an act of u.s. aggression against a sovereign state and has condemned it and fairly harsh terms. russia hass -- echoed in the syncretism -- sentiments and has halted quarter nation with the u.s. in a movement between the russian air forces. molly: henry, thank you for that from beirut. we will bring it to the studio where i am joined by is specialist and jihadist movement. let's focus on what we are seeing in terms of this missile launch. what are the ramifications? is it a game changer? >> i do not think it is a game changer at all. not like 2013, we should see

what we saw today that the strikes were neither a saturation state made to cripple the syrian military forces. neither strike aimed at degrading chemical weapons. in both cases among this airport is like a facility. they may be destroyed five or six airplanes, which are very old airplanes, and we saw from the first video from russia tv i'm a not that much damage done on -- tv and not that much damage is done. mosul know the state and regimellow the assad which evacuated most of the human power and some of the airplanes from before the strikes, which is not the first. we remember many strikes

remained after the first ones need to be hit. for example in the mid-1980's in lebanon and they were notified first to evacuate. it is more of a diplomatic sayingaimed to deter, the new administration in the united states is willing to assad goes toe using chemical weapons. any military action should be followed by diplomacy with a real, clear plan. until this point, we do not know if there is a real plan. meanwhile, we see the russians, as in the core response said, are raising their own leverage by suspending the confliction channel which is in coordination of military action on a syrian

strike. they stopped it. the u.s. airstrike on this jihadist is more complicated. molly: let's go from what we heard from washington from president trump. he was the blame on assad and said he used chemical weapons. why would he used chemical weapons? >> it looks irrational but behind every violent political action, there is some logic. the core message of this chemical weapon by the syrian forces is addressed to opponents in syria saying that he is still controlling and he can go as far as he wants. which gives them one or two choices. the first choice is for his opponents to go to him and fight against the jihadi groups or to join jihadi groups. we know if they join jihadi groups, they will it be ok to

kill everyone, which is happening in many cities in syria, iraq and other places. there are no arab states saying the reason things can change in the depths are the same. it is a local address to opponents. he is putting the stakes much higher regarding western democracies, proven in a way that they cannot do much to stop him besides this kind of strike, which is the red flag. not that they will be able to , thee drastically the game political game ongoing in syria. molly: we heard from syria and russia saying the strike against the airbase, it will have an impact in the fight against islamic straight d'este groups -- stay groups and it will hurt. is it true? >> it is a political game and

true in a sense. as i said, it will make it more difficult for the u.s. to commit airstrikes against the jihadi groups. we cannot forget the iraqis where we saw the americans and the malicious by iran and the iraqi scenes and all of this today are the same. it could have an impact, but i do not think on the loan term, it will have an impact. the focus is on fighting jihadi groups. this is the kind of warning for assad not to go further into a just. the message could have been much stronger, for example, if the u.s. would have struck the palace or official buildings in damascus or elsewhere. or for example military, important military officials.

they chose to struck a few military airplanes and not to put real pressure on the assad been regime like planned in 2013. molly: thank you for that. russia quickly condemned the u.s. missiles saying i it violas international law. let's listen to the russian foreign minister. >> it reminds me of the situation in 2003 when the u.s. and great britain and allies without u.n.q approval violating the law. this time they do not bother to present facts. they face their cases on full tolls only, speculation of photos and evidence from certain -- they based their evidence on photographs only an speculation of photos and evidence from certain sources. molly: i am joined by a

commentator. what are we seeing from the kremlin? >> it is somewhat predictable. you see a lot of indignation, huffing and puffing. they cannot really have any other reaction. russiaia has been a staunch ally a solder themr -- and theyey have to s say somethg in line wiwith the policy they have been projecting -- of solder them and they have -- sayd and they have to something in line with the policy they have been projecting. they are saying on a created pretext and they have no chemical arms that in one has and that is putin's spokesman and an obvious act to distract the american public, the world community's attention from the civilian cartridges inflicted why american forces and the coalition to capture mosul. very is a lot of very,

pronounced was out of russia. i was wanting some russian television and i saw the lower house of parliament, speaker after speaker, getting up, deputies condemning this action, calling for a rational response from russia, saying what we heard that a sense in russia that what the u.s. has done is counterproductive because it is striking. the syrian air force has been using the planes to fight the from the russian standpoint. they are not airstrikes, there were launched from 2 ships. based cruise- missiles. russia asking why there is no attempt to strike to the people they consider the real terrorists? it raises the questions of who they call the rebels who have used chemical weapons through the war. you have to ask, what can they

do about it? is it really indignation? , whatve to say that putin are his options, they are very limited. i think he is crossing his fingers that it is a one off, it will not go any further. outrage, they will try to contain it as an incident going forward. it is has significant consequences for russian relationship within the russian official's words could not get much worse. they were not in a state of war but it was pretty bad. significant damage going forward. not quite sure where to go with that political solution, which was sort of data on arrival, no sign of a political resolution in sight given the stalemate. molly: the u.s. secretary of state rex tillerson said it shows president trurump is willg to act when other countries have

crossed the line. toit says the trump was convey a message he will act. what it is, look at donald trump's situation on the home front. he is facing several congressional probes, an fbi probe for ties with russia. his popularity rating approval ratings, historical lows for a president in an early stage of presidency. he has been suffering legislative setbacks and fending off mutinies within his own party with a right-wing flank of his own party. he is up against it, up against the wall. it never hurts a president or any leader almost when you are up against it to become a war leader, to launch a military action. it evils patriotism. people tend to rally behind a president behind a military

action. in this case, a flowing president trump in many cases on the domestic front, this is something in the short-term, ironically, could get him an image boost. i will say something with a disclaimer because we are seeing voices of dissent among democrats but other activists saying he did it without congressional approval. forget international law that domestically, he did it without approval. if he embarks on further military, he better put it before congress. in action.ould stay congress better get involved if it is a wider operation. molly: doug, before you go, we have to secretary of state who will be in moscow to week. what does that say? sides right now, we

heard sergey lavrov saying russia's demands an explanation. that is what he is saying. you can imagine things are going to be quite tense behind the scenes when the leaders meet. these airstrikes on whether or not predictable or not, are going to put in the relationship in a new context and given the fact trump has been unpredictable in his foreign-policy actions to date, isis and the russians are very much is going to be looking for a real sent -- the russians are going to be looking for real sense and pressing rex tillerson in what is going through donond trump's mind. how can we find some common ground with this president right now? they are probably going to be looking at and praying rex tillerson comes as a minister of reason, a man they can have a rational conversation with and some sort of constructive dialogue with. molly: doug, thank you for that analysis.

we have seen international reaction for top european officials are approving the strikes. they say means of determining -- in determining -- deterring further strike. tusk said it is needed and the eu will work with the u.s. the leaders of germany and france said president assad brought of the structure upon himself by using chemical weapons. president hollande has called for defense counsel meeting later today. this operation from the u.s. was a response and must be pursued at the international level within the framework of the united nations so we can impose further sanctions against bashar al-assad and prevent further uses of chemical weapons and attacks by the regime on its own people. the outgoing french

president speaking earlier this friday. with more on international reactions, here is our correspondent. >> world powers were quick to respond to the drawing battle lines and a further escalation of a six-year long war. u.s. allies like u.k. and france trump's donald decision. france called for emergency meeting wall of the u.k. said it will -- it was consulted. have been in connection with the u.s. government in the next couple of days -- the past couple of days. the u.s. believed they have exhausted all diplomatic and peaceful ways of dealing with the use by the regime of chemical weapons. and they have been determined to try to prevent future attacks like this. iransad denied it and

warned it was strengthen terrorist and complicate the situation on the ground. while russia's head of the u.s. disregarded international law in attacking a sovereign nation. china condemned the attack saying it must be political. china has always opposed the use of force in international relations. i have said just now, we are world about the latest involvement of the latest situation in syria. >> trump was dining with a chinese president xi jinping when you ordered the strikes. this, we canre on speak to alexander, a security expert from the u university of genevava. thank you for joining us. i would like to ask your opinion. we heard from russia and iran strikeses, these missile strikes violate international law.

do you agree with that? >> i don't because it there is a u.n. security council that goes back several years which imposes a no-f-fly zone in the area. these chemical attacks were performed by aircraft. and i'd would like to say the russian position is very difficult to uphold considering that no action is going to be taken by worship or others in order -- by brushing or others to investigate or strike to impeach further chemical attacks. molly: considering we saw on thursday, hours before president trump gave the green light to launch missiles, we saw the un security council failed to reach agreement for investigation into tuesday's suspected chemical attack in italy. what -- idlib. what will we see from the u.n.? days, much for you for 2

there's been discussions and proposals that have been vetoed by the russian representatives. without any solution of proposing of doing something within the framework, it was necessary to act. recall 2 important items. the 202013 situation when president obama decided not to act and this was clearly not a favorable and encouraging signal. he did not act in the use of chemical weapons because the russians actually intervened and proposed a resolution s scheme which would involve taking out all of the chemical weapons and neutralizing these weapons. of course, the debate and discussions, one year after u.n. clarification and removal supposedly of the weapons, fortunately, the diplomatic solution, this political

solution has proven to be a failure. molly: you say the strikes were not in violation of international law, what do you believe the speed of which they were carried out, was it rational, in your opinion, considering evidence put forward? >> first of all, let me say that the russia is holding various locations in syria to date. it is interesting we are seeing a lot of criticism towards this u.s. strike. use oft, the purposeful military aircraft to bomb either but divisional weapons, all the more disgusting to use chemical weapons that have been prohibited, weapons the regime has demonstrated or has knowledge has been released, then handed over to russia f for their elimination and

neutralization. i think we should really ask ours cells, how is it possible after certain years of diplomatic discussions and u.n. verification, how is it possible that these weapons are s still available and it is weapons are still being used? molly: what do spec to see in terms of a u.s.-russia relations? the u.s. secretary of state will be going to russia next week? >> definitely, a deterioration. we have seen a response from the russian military which is the end of the quarter nation of -- quarter nation -- coordination of american flights. i think the risks is rather going to be higher than anything else. i would like to note that the bombing or strike has been performed by cruise missiles instead of using various weapons . this obviously can be attributed

to the risk level of using manned fighter-bombers from the u.s. navy carriers, i think has meant the u.s. rather wanted too use unmanned systems to precisely avoid such a risk of an incident with russia. i will recall the air defense army isver the syrian actually manned and actually furnisished by thehe russian military. usly: thank you for joining on the program. we do appreciate it. now, for more on reaction from turkey and we spoke to jasper a short time ago. they welcomed the u.s. airstrike. deputy prime minister norman thought nothas long only words of syria but wanted to see action against syria. he said turkey would like the

go further. he said the international community should clearly sustain its stance against the barbarism of the assad regime until they are unable to harm his people anymore. an interesting diplomatic aspect to this is the fact that for the past nine months, turkey has moved away from western efforts to resolve the syrian civil war. and joined russia and iran in launching the stoner process to .ring about a c cease-fire the u.s. was not involved in that process and now you see the turkish pendulum has swung to the united states. turkey has comee out supporting an american airstrike that russia and iran has condemned. molly: i want to shift and focus on the tuesday's attack where of

course some of the victims have been sent to turkey for investigation as to what caused their deaths. is there anything you can tell us where the investigation stands? >> yes, the turkish government in beirut as the reporter was saying, it was clearly a gas attack and t they point the finr at sarin. they have circulated at the results of their investigation. 60 of the 300 nonfatal casualties of the attack were brought to turkey and three of them died in turkish hospitals. bykish people were horrified the photographs of the syrian children killed in that attack. although, turks often see america as the warmongering

country that throws its weight around the world, broadly support this u.s. retaliation. as long as it is confined at the perpetrators and cause minimal casualties and so far, that seems to be the case. molly: that is just for mortimer. we will take a quick break. the news continues on "france 24 ." ♪ >> get connected. take the first step. ike, break away from your tv. find another dimension. news --linked up to the

become more linked up to the news west france24.com our tablet and news app. a connected view of the

>> my name is philippe vergne. i am theec