May puts UK closer to Syrian military action
President Trump warns ‘missiles will be coming’
BRITAIN LAST night appeared closer to backing military strikes against Syria after United States President Donald Trump warned the regime and its allies Russia that missiles “will be coming”.
Prime Minister Theresa May gave her strongest backing yet to the assessment that Moscowbacked Syrian president Bashar Assad and his forces were responsible for a suspected chemical weapons attack in the rebel-held town of Douma on Saturday.
In a hardening of her language, Mrs May said “all the indications” are that Assad was responsible for the brutal attack.
It came after Mr Trump launched an astonishing broadside at Russia, which warned against military action and promised to shoot down rockets fired at Syria.
Responding in a trademark tweet, President Trump said: “Russia vows to shoot down any and all missiles fired at Syria.
“Get ready, Russia, because they will be coming, nice and new and ‘smart’. You shouldn’t be partners with a Gas Killing Animal who kills his people and enjoys it!”
Later, Mrs May said in Birmingham: “We are working with our allies, we have been working to get an understanding of what happened on the ground. We are rapidly reaching that understanding.
“All the indications are that the Syrian regime was responsible and we will be working with our closest allies on how we can ensure that those who are responsible are held to account and how we can prevent and deter the humanitarian catastrophe that comes from the use of chemical weapons in the future.
“The continued use of chemical weapons cannot go unchallenged.”
The Prime Minister will first have to negotiate calls for a House of Commons vote on any military action led by Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn.
Mrs May sidestepped a question on whether she would recall Parliament from Easter recess any decision could depend on the scale of the proposed action.
The Government has no legal responsibility to put intervention to a vote but there is a convention that major action should be put before MPs.
In 2013, David Cameron lost a vote as Prime Minister on strikes against Assad after Tory rebels joined forces with Labour to oppose military action.
But yesterday Mrs May received a boost from one of the then-rebels, Totnes MP Sarah Wollaston, who said it was “time to act” to stop the use of chemical weapons “with impunity”.
Mr Trump’s decision to announce in highly inflammatory language on Twitter that missile strikes are imminent, rather than retaining an element of surprise, will raise eyebrows among military chiefs.
Ex-soldier and Conservative MP Johnny Mercer, a Defence Committee member said Britain played a calming role in the situation as he criticised the “unhelpful rhetoric” tweeted by the US President.
THE TRAGIC people of Syria have already waited for years for the West to halt a bloody civil war that has seen tens of thousands of lives lost – and countless crimes against humanity. Yet, as pressure grows for global intervention after reports that at least 40 people, including many young children, were killed in a suspected chemical attack, it will be better to form a coherent strategy before rushing to action.
As Theresa May carefully weighs up her political, diplomatic and military options – and President Donald Trump raises expectations of airstrikes with his latest bravado on Twitter as relations between America and Russia reach a new low – the PM’s dilemma is an acute one. She realises that Downing Street’s authority on such matters was left diminished following the Chilcot inquiry into the 2003 Iraq invasion. She also knows Commons support is crucial – and that her predecessor David Cameron lost a key vote in 2013 when Ed Miliband, the then Labour leader, had a late change of heart. MPs then backed the limited use of RAF fighter jets in 2015.
Yet, while Mrs May can still authorise military action under prerogative powers, she would be advised – after galvanising other nations to follow Britain’s lead in expelling Russian diplomats after the Salisbury spy poisoning case – to try to build a broader consensus after appearing to rule out United Nations involvement.
The more countries that stand in solidarity against Assad’s tyranny, the greater the likelihood of a response that is more effective than previous airstrikes which appeared to achieve little.
For, as the West’s leaders weigh up their options, some more cautiously than others, the question is this – will any intervention ease the suffering of the Syrian people, and increase the prospect of Assad and others being brought to justice, or will it only make a desperate situation even worse?