David Cameron has discussed Syria with Barack Obama as Britain and the US consider intervention. No 10 said the UK PM heard the “latest on US thinking” on the issue, ahead of a National Security Council meeting at midday and a Commons vote on Thursday.
Mr Cameron has yet to decide the nature of the UK’s response, the No 10 spokesman said, but it would be “legal and specific” to the chemical attack.
The Archbishop of Canterbury has warned MPs not to rush any decision.
Justin Welby said the consequences of military action across the Muslim world were unpredictable with the potential impact on those not directly involved in fighting “beyond description and horrible”.
The Syrian government has blamed opposition fighters for last Wednesday’s alleged chemical attack near Damascus, which reportedly killed more than 300 people.
UN weapons inspectors are returning to the site of the suspected attack later.
‘Assad responsible’
The phone call between Mr Obama and Mr Cameron was the second since the alleged chemical attack.
The aim is not regime change, according to Downing Street and the White House – but what they term “limited action” to show Syria and others that the use of chemical weapons will be punished.
With just under two million Syrian refugees already, one worry is that any military intervention could create even more. And targets will have to be chosen carefully ahead of any military action – which could, according to some sources, happen within days.
The West will have to be careful to avoid any civilian casualties.
And there is a real risk of retaliation – whether by the Syrian regime, or even one of its supporters. They include Russia and China – and Iran could also react. Retaliation could hit allies in the region or places such as Cyprus.
And another risk: that a military strike could help the opposition, who include elements linked to Al Qaeda – the very people the west doesn’t want to have any access to chemical weapons.
A Downing Street spokesman said: “Ahead of today’s NSC, it was an opportunity for the PM to hear the latest US thinking on the issue and to set out the options being considered by the government.
“Both leaders agreed that all the information available confirmed a chemical weapons attack had taken place, noting that even the Iranian President and Syrian regime had conceded this.
“And they both agreed they were in no doubt that the Assad regime was responsible.
“Regime forces were carrying out a military operation to regain that area from the opposition at the time; and there is no evidence that the opposition has the capability to deliver such a chemical weapons attack.
“The PM confirmed that the government had not yet taken a decision on the specific nature of our response, but that it would be legal and specific to the chemical weapons attack.”
The NSC will be attended by military and intelligence chiefs and senior ministers.
Meanwhile, the government is expected to publish the Commons motion for debate later, along with details on intelligence indicating the Assad regime was behind the attack.
The motion is expected to stress the need for “appropriate measures” to be taken in response to the use of chemical weapons by any country. Sources said it would not contain “a timetable for action” or specific military options.
It is understood Conservative MPs will be told to support the measure.
‘Grave violation’
US Vice-President Joe Biden has said there is “no doubt” the Syrian government was responsible.
But Syrian Foreign Minister Walim Moualem said the incident was being used as a pretext for intervention by the US and its allies.You can do a surgical strike but you need to be clear what is your whole campaign plan.” Admiral Lord West
Russia warned any foreign involvement in Syria without a UN mandate – over which it holds the power of veto – would be “a grave violation of international law”.
Labour leader Ed Miliband said his party would “consider supporting international action”, but only if it was legal and “specifically limited to deterring the future use of chemical weapons”.
Opposition frontbencher Diane Abbott has hinted she could resign as shadow health minister if Mr Miliband supported intervention.
But she told the BBC she would wait for the outcome of the Commons vote on the issue before making a decision.
“I think there’s a lot of reservation, not just in my party. Everyone is worried about an open-ended commitment that could drag us into civil war in Syria,” she told Sky News.
The Stop the War Coalition called on the British public to oppose what it called “another disastrous military intervention”.
Admiral Lord West, a former first sea lord, said he was “extremely nervous” about any potential military intervention.
BBC defence correspondent Caroline Wyatt said any military strikes would probably focus on command centres believed to be involved in the use of chemical vessels such as HMS Tireless could launch strikes on Syria, says the BBC’s Caroline Wyatt
She said cruise missiles could be launched from US ships in the Gulf or the Mediterranean, or Royal Navy vessels including submarine HMS Tireless.
The Labour peer said the UK and US should show any evidence of a chemical attack to Russia and China, which has also warned against intervention, to back up the case for action.
“Then we need to try and get a security council resolution. If the Russians and Chinese say ‘Yes, it is clear it was done by them [the Syrian government]’, then they would be in a very difficult position to vote against such a resolution. The most they could do is abstain,” he told BBC Radio 4’s Today Programme.
He said an attack would be “extremely dangerous” as it was hard to predict how the Assad regime might respond.
“You can do a surgical strike but you need to be clear what is your whole campaign plan, where do you go from there?” he said.
BBC Middle East
