105-MISSILE RAIN OF FIRE
THERESA MAY faced a public backlash last night for bombing Syria without Parliament’s backing – while Donald Trump described the attacks on three chemical weapons sites by the US, UK and France as ‘mission accomplished’.
The first poll carried out after yesterday’s raids showed that the public believe Mrs May’s action was wrong by a majority of almost two to one.
And six out of ten say there must be no more missile strikes unless she wins the backing of MPs – with only one in five in favour of her going it alone again.
The findings in the Survation poll for The Mail on Sunday came after:
British war planes bombed the Syrian regime for the first time, in revenge for its ‘despicable and barbaric’ chemical weapons attack on innocent civilians;
Four RAF Tornado jets launched devastating Storm Shadow missiles at a military facility near the city of Homs as part of a joint 105-missile strike with the US and France aimed at stopping President Bashar al-Assad gassing his own people;
UK security sources confirmed to this newspaper that RAF jets targeted the Him Shinshar chemical weapons storage facility, 15 miles west of Homs;
Claims in intelligence reports that the facility was linked to the chlorine attack on civilians in Douma on April 7 which led to at least 75 dead, including children.
Public opposition to the raids in the Survation poll was mirrored by signs of political unrest over the strikes – and diplomatic fears Russia might retaliate, escalating the situation towards a global conflict.
The Mail on Sunday has been told that during Thursday’s Cabinet war summit, Chancellor Philip Hammond, a former Defence Secretary, reportedly ‘caused raised eyebrows’ by questioning the RAF’s ability to carry out successful strikes.
A source said: ‘The Chancellor wasn’t sure the RAF would hit their targets because of the Russianbacked Syrian defence systems. There was an awkward silence.’
Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn called the air strikes ‘legally questionable’, forcing the Government to publish legal advice justifying them. It claimed ‘the UK is permitted under international law, on an exceptional basis, to take measures in order to alleviate overwhelming humanitarian suffering’.
Mrs May faces a Commons showdown with MPs tomorrow, with even some leading Conservatives warning she has risked worsening the situation in Syria.
First Minister Nicola Sturgeon said she objected to the air strikes, adding: ‘UK foreign policy should be set by Parliament, not the US President.’
Despite the criticism, the poll shows Mrs May remains far more popular than Labour.
She is the most trusted Prime Minister to lead the nation into war since Margaret Thatcher, beating David Cameron and Tony Blair. Ordering military action for the first time since entering No10, a
Mrs May now faces Commons showdown
sombre Mrs May used a 9am Downing Street press conference to insist the bombing was the ‘right thing to do’ to stop the use of banned chemical weapons. She denied Britain was interfering in Syria’s long and bloody civil war.
In a letter to MPs, the Prime Minister was defiant, saying: ‘This action is absolutely in Britain’s national interest. The lesson of history is that when the global rules and standards that keep us safe come under threat, we must take a stand and defend them.’
President Trump’s triumphant ‘mission accomplished’ declaration followed the US-led coalition’s launch of 105 cruise missiles at three chemical weapons factories and storage depots across Syria. The comments echoed George W. Bush’s premature declaration of victory over Iraq in 2003.
The Pentagon said all of its targets had been hit, despite Syria and its key ally Russia claiming that most of the missiles had been shot down by air defences, while the rest only hit disused or empty sites. The air strikes were launched a week to the day after an estimated 75 people were killed and a further 500 injured, including young children, in the suspected chemical weapons attack on Douma, a suburb of the capital Damascus.
Western intelligence agencies gathered evidence that convinced political leaders that the Assad ISRAElI warplanes bombed Iranian militia forces near the Syrian city of Aleppo, it was reported last night.
Twenty Iranians were said to have died in the attack, with footage showing what appeared to be an explosion after a missile was launched from the air.
The unconfirmed reports come a week after Israel was said to have been responsible for an attack on a military site in Syria in which seven Iranian soldiers died. Syria has long been used by its ally Iran as a base for operations supporting Israel’s enemy Hezbollah in lebanon. regime was to blame, including observations of an army helicopter over the city, while aid workers told how chlorine could be smelled in the air and victims were found with foam in their mouth and with burning eyes.
The White House said last night that in addition to chlorine, the nerve agent sarin was also used in Douma. It said doctors and aid organisations on the ground reported the ‘strong smell of chlorine and described symptoms consistent with exposure to sarin’.
A senior administration official said the US had ‘significant information that points to sarin use’.
President Trump gave the first warning of the attack on Wednesday when he tweeted that Russia should ‘get ready’ because ‘nice and new and smart’ missiles would be coming. He also told Vladimir Putin he should not be ‘partners with a Gas Killing Animal.’
At some time after 1am UK time yesterday, four Tornado GR4s bristling with the latest military hardware took off under the cover of darkness from RAF Akrotiri in Cyprus. The sorties followed several hours of briefings and meticulous assessments of the chemical weapons site by RAF crews and operational planners, intended to rule out civilian casualties.
Pictures released last night by the Ministry of Defence showed the tense final preparations at Akrotiri before the operation was finally launched, including a Flight Lieutenant dressed in a flying suit and carrying a pistol holster around his shoulder inspecting an ASRAAM air-to-air missile attached to the wing of one of the Tornados.
Each Tornado was flown by a twoman crew drawn from the RAF’s 31 Squadron, nicknamed the Gold Stars. These personnel form part of 903 Expeditionary Air Wing (EAW) based at Akrotiri. Crews have been conducting air strikes against Islamic State in Iraq and Syria since 2015.
Shortly after 2am yesterday the pilots and weapons systems officers aboard the Tornados released their payloads of Storm Shadow missiles, each costing £750,000, as President Trump announced that military operations against Syria had begun.
In order to avoid attack from Russian-made rocket systems operated by Syria, the RAF jets remained in international airspace throughout the operation. The missiles have a range of 155 miles and travelled 100 miles. At no time was the safety of the RAF crews endangered. It is understood that all eight British missiles found their targets and caused significant destruction.
Last night the MoD said: ‘Very careful scientific analysis was applied to determine where best to target the Storm Shadows to maximise the destruction of the stockpiled chemicals and to minimise any risks of contamination to the surrounding area.
‘The facility struck is located some distance from any known concentrations of civilian habitation, reducing yet further any such risk.
‘Our action was proportionate, specifically aimed at degrading the regime’s ability to use chemical weapons and deterring further such appalling acts.’ The same storage facility was also targeted by nine US Tomahawk missiles fired from a US Navy warship in the Red Sea, three French naval cruise missiles and two Scalp cruise missiles fired from Rafale fighter jets.
The US also launched a huge attack on a chemical weapons laboratory in Damascus thought by intelligence sources to have been involved in the production of sarin and other deadly nerve agents used by the Assad regime. At about 2am, 57 Tomahawk cruise missiles and 19 high explosive bombs were dropped on the Barzeh Research and Development facility with devastating results.
Early on Saturday US time, President Trump wrote on Twitter: ‘A perfectly executed strike last night. Thank you to France and the United Kingdom for their wisdom and the power of their fine Military. Could not have had a better result. Mission Accomplished!’
Commentators were quick to point out that President Bush stood on an aircraft carrier under a huge ‘Mission Accomplished’ banner just six weeks after the invasion of Iraq in 2003, but came to regret it, as what followed was a war that
cost the lives of hundreds of US and UK soldiers. But Pentagon spokesman Dana White backed Mr Trump’s slogan, saying: ‘We hit the sites, the heart of the chemical weapons programme. So it was mission accomplished.’
In a detailed briefing, the US military revealed that 105 missiles obliterated three Syrian regime chemical weapons sites in a ‘precise, overwhelming and effective’ attack.
Barzeh was the primary target, razed to the ground by 57 Tomahawk cruise missiles and 19 JASSM ‘smart bombs’ – used in combat for the first time. The second target was Him Shinshar, flattened by the eight Storm Shadow missiles from RAF Tornados, which were escorted by Typhoon fighter jets. It was also hit by nine US missiles and five French missiles.
The third target was a nearby chemical weapons bunker, pounded with seven Scalp missiles.
Lieutenant General Kenneth McKenzie Jr, staff director of the US Joint Chiefs of Staff, said all missiles fired by Allied forces hit their targets shortly after 4am local time, and denied claims made by Russia and Syria that dozens were shot out of the sky by Sovietera air defence missiles.
He added: ‘None of our aircraft or missiles involved in this operation were successfully engaged by Syrian air defences and we have no indication that Russian air defence systems were deployed.’
He said Syrian air defence systems only fired back ‘indiscriminately’ after the devastating strike mission.
He said: ‘Over 40 surface-to-air missiles were deployed by the Syrian regime. Most of these launches were conducted after the last impact of our strike was over. We assess that the defensive efforts of Syria were largely ineffective.’
Syrian TV broadcast images of the ruins of the scientific research centre that was reduced to rubble, but the regime claimed the attack had little impact.
Assad loyalists took to the streets of Damascus waving flags and mocking Mr Trump, while a Twitter account run by President Assad’s office posted a video of him walking calmly through the presidential palace.
No further sorties were expected by the US or its allies today.
But arguments still raged over the legitimacy of the strikes as well as the truth behind the deaths in rebel-controlled Douma.
At a meeting of the UN Security Council last night called at Russia’s request, Mr Putin’s envoy called the air strikes an ‘act of aggression’, while UN Secretary General Antonio Guterres urged restraint to ‘avoid escalation’. The military operation was denounced as a ‘crime’ by Iran’s Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, but welcomed by Turkey’s President Erdogan as sending a message to Assad that his massacre would not go unpunished.
German Chancellor Angela Merkel called it ‘necessary and appropriate’ even though her country did not join in, while Nato Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg said he backed the action.
In Syria, the opposition was braced for revenge attacks, particularly in rebel-held territory in the north-west. ‘Maybe the regime will not use chemical weapons, but it will not hesitate to use weapons,’ opposition leader Nasr al-Hariri said.
THE Cold War is ‘back with a vengeance’, according to Antonio Guterres the secretary general of the United Nations – and that was before Friday night’s missile strike on Syrian targets. With America and the West lining up against Russia and its allies in a series of international flashpoints, it is easy enough to see what he means.
Russia, now re-armed, is a formidable fighting force once again and is determined to flex its muscles. But there are profound differences between the decades long stand-off between East and West – differences which make our situation all the more dangerous and our current course of action reckless.
There is no doubting the gravity of the Cold War, and there are clear echoes: two rival camps, armed to the teeth, in a competition fought around the globe. However, there was dialogue throughout the post-war decades, there were protocols and, for those of us in the West at least, the world was a safer place.
Then there was stability – now there is not. Nato and the Warsaw Pact played a game of three dimensional chess with a set of deterrence doctrines resembling complex theology. The rules of the game were established over time, and refined.
There was little macho posturing, nor were politics swamped by the sort of rent-amob opinion generated by 24hour news coverage.
Today we are in an altogether different and still more perilous situation.
Two of the main world leaders, Trump and Putin revel in a crude machismo worthy of a Latin American dictator. Even the sober-suited Chinese president, Xi Jinping seems to enjoy donning his camouflage gear.
And the stakes in the Syrian cockpit are high. The civil war is playing out a major sectarian conflict between Sunni Saudi Arabia and Shia Iran, with the Israelis and Emiratis also keen to contain Iran’s alleged expansionism. Israel’s fear that Iran is playing grandmother’s footsteps by establishing bases in Syria has led it to conduct its own air strikes, as we witnessed two weeks ago.
Yesterday Iran issued its own warning to Israel. Meanwhile Turkey has sent its forces into northern Syria to prevent the establishment of a Kurdish state, their ultimate nightmare.
The Kurds, of course, were the main force the US used to destroy IS, which means that the Americans have to choose between Turkey, a major Nato ally, and the Pentagon’s Kurdish auxiliaries.
NO WONDER the Kurds are moving into Assad’s camp even as Turkey drifts from Nato into Putin’s embrace. The Middle East is almost literally a powder keg – and unless we show extreme caution it is capable of detonating major regional conflicts, with every risk we could find ourselves drawn in.
Imagine, for example, an open conflict between Saudi Arabia and Iran. What price oil then?
If autocratic strong men such as Putin are worrying, so are their advisers.
In the old Soviet Union, the KGB was firmly under the thumb of the ruling Politburo.
Since the collapse of Communism, however, KGB veterans have moved into the Kremlin, Russia’s leader among them. They bring with them a resentful, paranoid mentality and a disregard for the truth so ingrained that they can claim that MI6 poisoned the Skripals or ‘organised’ the chemical attack in Douma.
Russia is no longer a philosophical rival to the West with its own, alternative economic system. Today it is a ‘resource kleptocracy’ in which a privileged elite have grabbed the profits of oil, gas and metals to squirrel them away in Western banks.
Putin and his supporters are not driven by ideology but by such dangerous forces as nationalism, religion, sentiment and uncompromising realpolitik.
Not that the West is blameless. The reason the Russians find it easy to interfere in our democratic systems is that these have already been debased by the likes of Breitbart, Fox News, and the hysterical echo chamber of social media. Ignorance of history and of international affairs is pervasive. Perhaps the most troubling aspect of the confrontation is not just the abject failure of our diplomacy, but the plain refusal to face reality.
Without a rational assessment of our own position, and without diplomacy – a field we have all but abandoned – there is little we can do unless we wish to make the situation worse.
A hundred ‘precise’ missile strikes will not alter the realities on the ground in Syria where thanks to Russian air power, Iranian commanders and Hezbollah ground troops, Assad has routed rebels who are dominated by Saudi sponsored jihadis.
An endless civil war will serve no one. Imagine the numbers of dead, or indeed of fresh migrants, if this cockpit conflict escalates into bigger, regional wars. The missiles and bombs will not look so ‘smart’ then. No wonder the missiles were carefully calibrated to avoid altering the fundamental balance of the conflict.
But that raises the question of why they were fired at all.
No doubt fearful of our isolation post-Brexit, Mrs May prefers to back Trump’s PlayStation version of geopolitics by pressing ‘action’.
SHE has also managed to avoid the democratic scrutiny of a parliamentary debate by refusing to recall MPs from their remarkably long Easter break. For most of us this ended weeks ago. Neither does her much credit.
Putin will absorb these strikes, knowing that Trump wants to get out of the Middle East. After all, he can make life difficult for the West in half a dozen other crises from Libya via Iran and Qatar to North Korea.
As Russia hopes to become the dominant power in the Middle East, there is quite a prize to play for. It is the Russians, the Iranians and the Turks who will determine Syria’s future, with or without Assad.
Perhaps that’s why Assad resorts to chlorine weapons – to bind his powerful allies into continued support against an outraged West. Otherwise he is irrelevant to them.
Our own episodic attacks with fancy weapons will do nothing to alter the realities in Syria. Britain, instead, should take part in serious conversations about how to stop this atrocity of a civil war before it enters its eight, tenth or twelfth year. The Lebanese civil war lasted a horrific 15.
Only then can the refugees go home, and the repair work – give or take $200billion – commence. But that requires leaders with insight, intelligence and patience – not political hostages to rolling 24-hour news and social media.
Middle East is almost literally a powder keg