White House: possible action on Syria 'not about regime change' – as it happened

'The goal here is to make clear that this is unacceptable'
On UK plan to hold Syria vote: 'This is a different country'
US secretary of defense: American forces 'ready to go'
Read the latest summary
UN inspector in Syria
A still from an amateur video shows a UN inspector examining a canister in the Damascus suburb hit by a suspected chemical attack. Photograph: AP


We're going to wrap up our blog coverage for the day. Here's a summary of the latest developments in Syria:

Anonymous US officials told multiple media outlets that the United States would likely lead a "limited" set of strikes on Syria. But the White House said no decision had been made about potential military action. Spokesman Jay Carney said, however, that the goal of an attack would not be to take down the Assad regime.

Carney said that letting the suspected chemical attack go unanswered would constitute a threat to the United States.

The Local Coordination Committees activist group reported that at least 43 had been killed Tuesday in violence in Syria.

The White House repeated its assertion that indisputable evidence showed a large-scale chemical attack had been carried out on 21 August, and Vice President Joe Biden said unequivocally that the Assad regime did it.

Syria said it would defend itself against any attack from the outside. Iran warned against a possible strike on Syria, saying such a move could be regionally destabilizing. Russia and China warned that strikes on Syria based on supposed evidence of WMDs risked repeating the mistake the United States made in Iraq in 2003. Israel warned that it would retaliate if it is hit.

US secretary of defense Chuck Hagel said the military was "ready to go" in carrying out any orders from the president.

President Obama has not announced a plan to seek a congressional vote on a Syrian war resolution. British prime minister David Cameron called parliament to convene and said a vote would be taken Thursday.

The Arab League, France, Italy Turkey, Australia and Saudi Arabia echoed remarks by US secretary of state John Kerry that the chemical attack had occurred and the Assad regime was responsible.

Barack Obama and David Cameron discussed the Syrian crisis in a telephone call on Tuesday evening, the Guardian's Nicholas Watt reports. Sources said they discussed the latest thinking but no decisions on a military strike were made.

A special correspondent for Le Monde, Jean-Philippe Rémy, spent two months with FSA fighters in the Damascus suburbs.

Remy reports the fighters were repeatedly attacked with chemical weapons while he was with them. Remy's detailed report, a recommended read, says in part:



Watch the Le Monde report (read it in full in English here):

(h/t @RayaJalabi)

Many journalists are questioning the Obama administration assertion that it has not decided what to do on Syria. In the Washington Post, Max Fisher writes that the Obama administration is "clearly telegraphing that it likely plans to launch limited strikes against Syria" and is indicating when and how.

That makes sense, Fisher writes, because the goal is not to take Assad by surprise, thereby inflicting maximum damage, but to punish Assad while avoiding civilian casualties and limiting the risk of a regional escalation:


Nick Schifrin (@nickschifrin)

White House can't be more obvious decision already made on #Syria. Carney on UN inspectors: "not sure they need to fulfill their mandate"

August 27, 2013

However such reporting about what the White House is likely to do has set off a debate that grabs reporter Josh Shahryar the wrong way.

Shahryar writes that watching the chattering classes begin to loudly argue the merits of the US plan in Syria has him "seriously starting to doubt the intellectual honesty of some these pundits." Shahryar lists a few reasons, beginning with:

1. We have no idea what any intervention is going to look like. 

Really. We don’t know if it’s going to be Cruise missiles from the Mediterranean or Marines from helicopters. We don’t know what its scope will be, what the goals are and how long the timeframe will end up being. In the absence of this information, I’m not sure how people can make any judgment about intervention.

Can’t we all just wait a few more days to find out what the plan is before we support or oppose it? Let me remind you, you’re not in Damascus or in Aleppo right now. You’re likely sitting at home in Washington, D.C. or New York. You’re safe. You don’t have to worry about the bombs or the gas. So don’t panic. Wait before you start reaching conclusions.

Meanwhile the Onion, the venerated American purveyor of news satire, reports that "The president has conferred with his top advisers and is currently considering everything from authorizing missile strikes against Syrian regime targets, to taking out Syrian regime targets with missile strikes."

The Local Coordination Committees, a Syrian activist group with branches across the country, compiles local reports to estimate the number killed in violence in Syria each day.

On Tuesday, 43 people have been reported killed, including 18 in the Damascus area and 11 in Homs, according to the LCCS.

It was a bad day for the US markets:

NEW YORK, Aug 27 (Reuters) - U.S. stocks suffered their worst day since June on Tuesday, slumping in a broad decline as geopolitical uncertainty rose over a possible U.S.-led military strike against Syrian President Bashar al-Assad's forces.
The Dow Jones industrial average was down 170.40 points, or 1.14 percent, at 14,776.06. The Standard & Poor's 500 Index was down 26.30 points, or 1.59 percent, at 1,630.48. The Nasdaq Composite Index was down 79.05 points, or 2.16 percent, at 3,578.52.

but a good day for oil:

(Associated Press) The price of oil closed above $109 a barrel, its highest level in a year and a half, as the U.S. edged closer to intervening in Syria's civil war [...]





James Miller, who has covered the Syria conflict on a daily basis for more than two years, writes in The Interpreter magazine that the back-and-forth with the United States over Syria has served to further isolate Russia.

Miller also thinks the episode has emptied the United Nations of its last vestiges of influence, as Russia simply vetoes and the United States simply bypasses:

The Putin administration and the Obama administration are on opposite sides of the same realization – the United Nations is irrelevant. If Russia has felt like the outsider at the UN, the U.S. is now telling Russia that they can have it.

If the United States continues to move away from using the United Nations as the final arbiter of international diplomacy, then this could be nearly the final brick in the new wall that Russia has built between itself and the West. Russia’s isolation would be one step closer to being complete.

And once that happens, its veto power in the United Nations will be even more irrelevant than the United Nations itself. With shrinking political, military, and economic influence, and with frustration growing in Europe and the United States with Vladimir Putin’s policies, it seems that the West may be moving away from Russia faster than Russia is moving away from the West.

Read the full piece here.

(h/t: @Brian_Whit)


Italy is on board:




Vice President Joe Biden has repeated the administration position that the Assad regime "must be held accountable" for perpetrating a large-scale chemical attack outside Damascus last week, the evidence for which is said by the Obama administration to be incontrovertible.

Biden, speaking to veterans, appears, characteristically, to have gone even a step beyond what the White House has said so far, by declaring outright that the regime was behind the chemical attack – without the "little doubt" caveat.

Any regular (or passer-by, for that matter) in the comments section of this blog knows it's a place for strong opinions born in many cases from firsthand experience and a depth of knowledge we rely on to shape our coverage.

Now you're invited to put your policy prescriptions into words. The Guardian social news team has launched a tool, "If I were in charge," that asks readers to articulate their ideas for the best next step on Syria. Read what others are saying and add your own idea here.

Nothing to see here: the English-language Twitter feed of the official Syrian Arab News Agency:

SANA English (@SANA_English)

#Syria Weather: Temperatures 1-3C above the seasonal average. Sunny in general tomorrow with the appearance of some clouds. Misty in the E

August 27, 2013

The Guardian's Raya Jalabi (@RayaJalabi) flags commentary on Syria that is finding a wide audience today. "Pundits are predictably divided over what seems an increasingly inevitable US military campaign," Raya writes:

Over at the New Yorker, American journalist George Packer takes up this division quite literally, by engaging in a heated debate with ... himself:

I don’t think Obama committed himself to any one course of action. But if he does bomb [Syria], we’re involved in that war, and I sure hope his advisers have thought through all the potential consequences better than you have.





I’m not saying that.

What are you saying?


Read the full piece here.

Elsewhere, the Guardian's former Middle East editor, Brian Whitaker, argues in the latest post on his blog, Al Bab, that “It's time to cast off the Iraq war mindset.” Whitaker says that we shouldn't be looking at Syria through the prism of 2003 Iraq and WMDs, and that any Syrian operation should be carefully constructed around a single goal: "sending a message to the Syrian regime that the use of chemical weapons will have serious consequences now and in the future.”

The problem, though, is that the dreadful example of Iraq obscures the real picture regarding Syria. Syria is viewed as Iraq 2.0, and so the issue of chemical weapons in Syria is inevitably seen as a pretext for war and little else.

It is only by casting off this "Iraq mindset" that we can begin to grasp the realities of Syria and what to do about it. … The current issue is actually very simple: what to do if someone uses chemical weapons... Chemical weapons are not just a matter of concern in Syria; they are a matter of concern for the whole world, since the world has banned their use.

Hussein Ibish, a Senior Fellow at the American Task Force on Palestine, on the other hand, calls on the US to engage in "good old-fashioned mission-creep" and avoid limiting its intervention to a 'tactical chemical-weapons based approach":

Tactical intervention against chemical weapons-related resources is a good start. But it's not enough. A strategic intervention designed to shift the balance of power on the ground – away from both the regime and the more extreme rebel groups – and toward more nationalist, rational, and acceptable rebel forces is required.

Everything is in place. It may not happen, or be obvious, right away. But if the United States is to finally abandon, however reluctantly, what has heretofore been a fundamentally risk-averse, reactive policy that has allowed other, entirely malevolent, forces to shape realities on the ground in Syria, a genuine, coordinated strategic intervention is required.
The time to act decisively is now. Both the Damascus regime and the extremist rebels simultaneously must be outmaneuvered, thwarted and defeated. This will require real, courageous American leadership.

Read the full piece here. 

– Raya Jalabi

The Guardian's Mona Mahmood has spoken on the phone with a young man in Damascus about the difficulty of carving out a livelihood for himself and his family, and the anxiety of waiting for war where he lives. The man, who spoke on condition of anonymity, said Damascenes are exhausting their savings to survive. He also spoke of his hope for a US attack on the Assad regime. He told Mona:

I'm 24 years old, I live with my five brothers and three sisters and my parents. I work in a company for computers. My two married brothers, who used to live in their own houses, decided to come and join us with their children. We as a family thought we should be together in case a war broke out. [...]

Practically we are working, but we earn nothing. I hardly can cover my expenses but can give nothing to my family. [...] Before the events, there was micro buses that were used by common people, but now they have disappeared because of the checkpoints and because they were for long distances. You have to take a taxi all the time if you want to go anywhere. Taxis are so expensive, and the Syrian lire is losing its value day by day. [...]

For the children, no child goes to kindergarten, as kindergartens are shut down. For primary schools, all pupils who live nearby their schools, they can go to schools and they are accompanied by their parents. Most of the pupils in secondary schools have gone to Egypt or Jordan to complete their studies or to Europe.

We take the children to the nearby park to spend some time and head back home. There are only a few places now in Damascus that you can go to entertain yourself. Shops are open if you want to buy clothes or shoes or food.

The Damascus resident says "We expect the US attack soon":

We will be so happy if the US and UK attack Syria. I believe the US and British army would attack all the regime's defences as well as some positions of the [Free Syrian Army]. They are not happy with all the fighters who are working with FSA. [...]

I think any attack would be launch by US and UK will be for the interest of the Syrian people. Any new regime coming to Syria wont be worse than what we are going through now.[...]

We are preparing ourselves for the war. We believe the war would be against the government not the Syrian people. We have bought lots of tinned food and pickles and gas tubes in fear there will be shortage. We bought lots of bread still we are worried power will go off and all the food will be rotten.. We do not expect the war to last for more than two to three weeks. [...]

As long as the UN inspection teams are still in Syria, the attack will not happen. Only when they leave.

– Interview by Mona Mahmood (@monamood)


A percolating sentiment, after Carney's repeated avowals that the president has made no decision to use military force in Syria:

Hussein Ibish (@Ibishblog)

YES! “@lrozen: Can we all call bull**** on US official saying no decision on force made. It's patently bull. Decision hasn't bn announced.”

August 27, 2013

Carney used the assertion that the president has made no decision on military action in Syria to avoid any debate on the merits of such military action, which he treated as "hypothetical."

A hypothetical cannot be debated. But once it's no longer a hypothetical – once it's a fait accompli – it's too late to hold a debate. Great for the White House.


Here's a summary of the Carney news conference. The White House spokesman said:

The president has not made a decision to use military force in Syria.

The goal of any military strike would not extend to bringing about regime change.

The goal of strikes would be to show that the use of chemical weapons is 'unacceptable.'

The use of chemical weapons violates international norms.

The president is speaking with members of Congress, but has not called on Congress to convene to vote on possible military action.

Letting the suspected chemical attack go unanswered would constitute a threat to the United States.


Question for Carney: Does the US have any strategic goal at all, in a potential military strike?

"The use of chemical weapons on the scale that we have seen... merits a response," Carney says.

"The goal here is to make clear that this is unacceptable. That this is a red line that has been crossed."

Question for Carney: How can the US ensure that chemical weapons stockpiles in Syria are secure?

"That's what we're discussing now. The violation is clear and it has to be responded to," Carney says.

"I can't predict as this conflict continues what course of action the regime might take with its stockpile of chemical weapons. The use of those weapons must be responded to."

The White House is in the strange position of proposing military action that would somehow punish or deter the Assad regime – while stating publicly it has no intention of taking out the Assad regime.

Carney is asked about Obama's statement as a candidate in 2007 of his belief that a president may only take unilateral war action, without congressional approval, in cases of "an actual and imminent threat" to the United States.

Does the US face such a threat?

Carney replies in the affirmative: "Allowing [the asserted chemical attack] to take place without a response would present a significant... threat to the United States," Carney says.


Question: is it fair to say that the US considers UN security council support for military action on Syria to be not necessarily required?


I don't think there's any doubt... that chemical weapons were used... so the transgression is established. Beyond that, we will have more to say once a decision has been made about the response.

As in the air war on Libya, the US appears not to have a chance of gaining security council backing because of sure "no" votes by Russia and China.

A masterpiece of flack-speak from Carney:


Carney reiterates that the White House has made no decision to take military action on Syria:


Does Obama want to take out Assad?

Carney: "The options that we are considering are not about regime change."

"There will be a response... there must be a response," Carney says. "We cannot allow this kind of violation of an international norm."


Carney's asked: Cameron's convening parliament. Why can't Obama convene Congress?

Answer: "Obviously this is a different country with a different form of government."

Carney is asked, is it true that the president has no plans to call on Congress to convene to vote on a war resolution before any strike on Syria?

"I don't want to engage in speculation," Carney says. "When the president has an announcement to make, he'll make it."

"We are consulting directly with House and Senate leaders... that process will continue."

Carney says the findings of a US investigation into the suspected chemical weapons attack of 21 August would be released "in the coming days". It's to be a declassified intelligence report.

"There will be more information provided... from the intelligence community. But this is not just an inference. This is not just the US government asserting it."

Carney cites the Arab League, Doctors Without Borders, eyewitness accounts and videos, and media accounts.

White House spokesman Jay Carney begins his briefing.

"The president continues working with his national security team reviewing the options" on Syria, Carney says. "When he's made a decision he'll announce it."

Q: He has not made a decision yet?

A: Correct.

David Cameron has just been speaking on British TV about the vote in the House of Commons on Thursday on possible military action against Syria. Guardian political correspondent Andrew Sparrow watched the interview. Andrew writes:

Although Cameron said that no final decision about military action had been taken, he said that Britain and other countries could not ignore the use of chemical weapons. Any action against Syria would be purely about this, he said. It would not mark a wider intervention. Cameron:

No decision has yet been taken, but let's be clear what is at stake here; almost 100 years ago the whole world came together and said that the use of chemical weapons was morally indefensible and completely wrong, and what we've seen in Syria are appalling scenes of death and suffering because of the use of chemical weapons by the Assad regime, and I don't believe we can let that stand.

Now of course any action we take, or others take, would have to be legal, would have to be proportionate, would have to be specifically to deter and degrade the future use of chemical weapons. Let me stress to people, this is not about getting involved in a Middle Eastern war, or changing our stance in Syria, or going further into that conflict. It’s about chemical weapons. Their use is wrong and the world shouldn’t stand ideally by.

Cameron said that he understood people's concerns about military action.

This is not about wars in the Middle East. This is not even about the Syrian conflict. It’s about the use of chemical weapons, and making sure, as a world, we deter their use and we deter the appalling scenes we’ve all seen on our television screens.

British PM David Cameron in an appearance on Sky News, 27 August 2013.
British PM David Cameron in an appearance on Sky News, 27 August 2013. Photograph: /Sky News

Cameron also acknowledged there could never be "100% certainty" about who was to blame for the chemical weapons attack last week.

There is never 100% certainty. There is never one piece of intelligence, or several pieces of intelligence, that can give you absolute certainty. But what we know is this regime has huge stocks of chemical weapons. We know that they have used them on at least 10 occasions prior to this last widescale use. We know that they have both the motive and the opportunity, whereas the opposition does not have those things and the opposition’s chance of having used chemical weapons, in our view, is vanishingly small. We know all these things. The question now for us is: are we all more likely to deter the future use of chemical weapons by acting or not acting.

Cameron did not give further details about the motion that MPs will be asked to support on Thursday.

– Andrew Sparrow (@AndrewSparrow)

The New York Times has published the most thorough account we've seen of what happened in the 21 August [reported] chemical attack in east Damascus. The account is based on "Interviews with more than two dozen activists, rebels and doctors in areas near the attack sites, as well as an examination of more than 100 videos and photos of the aftermath."The Times finds that its reporting backs up the White House belief that the attack was


A preponderance of evidence that a chemical attack had taken place led US secretary of state John Kerry to declare Monday that anyone who challenged the veracity of the attack "needs to check their conscience and their own moral compass." White House spokesman Jay Carney said "The visual evidence is overwhelming and compelling."

Read the full piece here.

One substantial risk of escalating the Syrian conflict is that it will escalate further, producing perhaps an attack on Israel's northern border. The US would control the first stage of any military strike plan in Syria, but the US does not thereafter get to decide for Hezbollah whether it will strike Haifa in retaliation or decide for Assad a parallel question.

Israeli prime minister Binyamin Netanyahu said today that Israel is not a party to the Syria conflict. However, he said according to Reuters, Israel will respond forcefully to any attacks.


The daily White House and state department briefings are scheduled to begin within the hour. Here's a summary of where things stand in the escalation of the Syria conflict:

US secretary of defense Chuck Hagel said the military is ready to carry out orders from President Obama which could include an attack on Syrian territory.

Multiple anonymous US officials spoke to multiple media outlets about strikes in Syria that would begin in a matter of days and last a matter of days. No one has yet attached his or her name to a description of such a plan.

President Obama has not announced plans to seek a congressional war resolution, despite calls by some members for him to do so. UK prime minister David Cameron announced that parliament would convene Thursday to debate and vote on potential military action.

Obama does appear to have the support of important allies for any military action. Today the Arab League, France, Turkey, Australia and Saudi Arabia echoed remarks by US secretary of state John Kerry that the chemical attack had occurred and the Assad regime was responsible. France said it "would not shirk its responsibilities." Downing Street spoke of a "proportionate" response.

The UN chemical weapons inspectors in Damascus have postponed their next visit to the site of the suspected attack for 24 hours, until tomorrow. On Monday, White House spokesman Jay Carney undercut their mission, saying definitive evidence of a chemical attack already had been procured and anyway the UN inspectors are too late on the scene.

Syrian foreign minister Walid Muallem rejected "utterly and completely" claims that Syrian govenrment forces had used chemical weapons. He challenged the Americans to produce evidence.

Russia and China both questioned the evidence of chemical weapons use in Syria and warned of a possible replay of the 2003 Iraq invasion, in which the US led a military incursion based on faulty WMDs intelligence.


French President François Hollande has told a conference of French ambassadors at the Elysée palace that everything suggests that the Syrian regime carried out the "abject" act of a chemical attack, Guardian Paris correspondent Angelique Chrisafis (@achrisafis) reports:

The French president added: "France is ready to punish those who took the vile decision to gas innocent people." He said a meeting of France's defence chiefs would be held in Paris tomorrow (weds) and "parliament will be informed of the situation as soon as possible". He added that France would also step up its military support to the Syrian national coalition. Hollande said the Syria conflict was spreading across the region and "today threatens world peace".

French President Francois Hollande delivers his speech during a conference with France's ambassadors, at the Elysee Palace, in Paris, Tuesday Aug. 27, 2013. Photograph: Kenzo Tribouillard/AP


The White House has declined to say whether the administration would take action in Syria without Congressional backing, Guardian Washington correspondent Paul Lewis reports.

On Monday, spokesman Jay Carney said only that “members of Congress with a particular interest in this matter have been consulted”.

The only congressman known to have spoken with the White House is the House Republican speaker John Boehner, who confirmed he had a “preliminary communication” with the administration about Syria. But it seems likely that administration officials have also discussed the situation with the leaders of the relevant congressional defense and national security committees.

But with Congress in recess until Monday, 9 September, and no indication it will be urgently recalled, as will occur with Britain’s parliament on Thursday, it is hard to see how there can be wider consultation, let alone authorisation, from Congress for any imminent military action.

The White House is risking a repeat of the controversy that beset Obama in 2011, when he launched a limited intervention in Libya without Congressional backing.

Congressman may be out of town, but a similar debate is already hotting up, with Republican representative Justin Amash tweeting today that a US strike against Syria without Congressional authority would be “unquestionably unconstitutional”:

Justin Amash (@repjustinamash)

Unquestionably unconstitutional & illegal for Pres to strike #Syria w/o congressional auth. War Powers Res is clear: http://t.co/1PLurncs4M.

August 27, 2013

There are a lot of rumors flying about the potential US war plan. The rumors are based on guidance offered to reporters by unnamed officials in what appears to be a coordinated rollout by the White House.

Citing unnamed "US and European officials," Reuters reports that a "short, sharp attack" is the "preferred response."

Citing unnamed "senior US officials," NBC News reports that an attack could begin as early as Thursday and last three days.

Citing "senior administration officials," the Washington Post reports that the president is considering "a military strike... of limited scope and duration."

NB: The rumors about potential start dates and durations are just that.

The anonymous officials also have put forward objectives of such a prospective attack. It would seek to act as a punishment for the alleged use of chemical weapons, and as a deterrent to further [alleged] chemical weapons use by the Assad regime; it would seek to prove that the president meant it when he warned about a CW red line; it would seek not to grow into something bigger.

British prime minister David Cameron has announced plans to convene parliament to hold a debate and vote on any new course of action in Syria.

So what about US president Barack Obama? The president has announced no plans for a vote in Congress on a new war resolution.

At least one Republican lawmaker, albeit a very junior one, is urging Obama to seek congressional approval through a vote – as opposed to informal "conversations" with members – on any potential military strike.

Rep. Scott Rigell of Virginia, a one-term member of the House Armed Services Committee, is asking colleagues to sign a letter to Obama asking that he invite Congress to reconvene, the AP reports:



As Obama prepared to participate in an air war over Libya in 2011 without formal Congressional backing, Glenn Greenwald noted that as a candidate, Obama seemed to rule out such unilateral action.

Greenwald flags this passage from a 2007 Obama interview with Charlie Savage, now of the New York Times:




It's a day for gestures of support for the US-led plan to [TK] in Syria. Saudi foreign minister Saud al-Faisal is calling for a "decisive and serious stand." The Daily Star (Beirut) translates his remarks according to state news:

"The rejection of the Syrian regime of all serious and earnest Arab efforts .... requires a decisive and serious stand by the international community to stop the humanitarian tragedy of the Syrian people," Prince Saud was quoted as saying by the state news agency SPA.

Malfunction: Our apologies. The blog has been broken for about 40 minutes. We are hoping that this post represents a return to functionality.

France is further lining up behind potential military action in response to the suspected chemical attack in Syria.

Reuters has been speaking to a French "diplomatic source" who is echoing the main points US secretary of state John Kerry made Monday: it's clear there was an attack and a response must be forthcoming.

The source says there's "no doubt" that Assad's forces were behind the attack, Reuters reports. The unnamed source is quoted as saying that the use of chemical weapons is unacceptable and that France will "not shirk its responsibilities" in response to the attack.

The stance of course is the opposite of France's position on the Iraq invasion of 2003. Russia and China are at pains to compare the Iraq war with the current potential international conflict, pointing out that the last time the United States led a war effort in the Middle East based on evidence of weapons of mass destruction, the evidence turned out to be bad.

France is treating the current evidence as conclusive.

The hard Arab League stance against the Assad regime emerged from a meeting of the 22-member organization in Cairo. The coalition said that the Syrian government had committed a chemical attack and that it "demands that all the perpetrators of this heinous crime be presented for international trials". Reuters has more:

[The Arab League] also urged the [UN security] council to "overcome the differences among its members by taking the necessary ... resolutions against the perpetrators of this crime, for which the Syrian regime bears responsibility, and to end the violations and crimes of genocide that the Syrian regime has been carrying out for over two years".

As it crafts a coalition outside the United Nations to back potential strikes on Syria, the United States has gone looking for support from the Arab League – and apparently procured it.

This just across the wire:

CAIRO (AP) Arab League says Syrian government to blame for chemical weapons attack that killed hundreds .

This is Tom McCarthy in New York taking the blog from London.


The UN inspectors in Damascus have postponed their next site visit for 24 hours, until tomorrow. I posted a link to the UN statement about this earlier, but the wording was not clear and so I did not pick up the significance of the 24-hour delay.


According to the Daily Star in Lebanon, one of the suspects being questioned about the bombing in Tripoli in Lebanon last week has said that Syrian intelligence was behind it.

The prospect of a military strike against Syria is being held responsible for share prices falling around the world. According to Reuters, European shares were down 1.2 percent by midday, matching an earlier drop across Asian markets outside Japan. Tokyo's Nikkei ended 0.7 percent lower.

But the price of oil has been rising. Brent crude oil for October was over $112 a barrel, nearly a six month high, while U.S. crude was up $1.03 to $106.95 a barrel, Reuters reports.

Here are the main points from the BBC's interview with Chuck Hagel, the US defence secretary. (See 1.11pm.)

Hagel said that possible US attacks on Syria were "ready to go".


He said the final decision about whether to go ahead with military action had not been taken.

He said the US wanted to act "in concert with the international community" and "within the boundaries of international law".

He said most countries in the world agreed that Syria was responsible for the chemical weapons attack.


Chuck Hagel.
Chuck Hagel. Photograph: Chong/Xinhua Press/Corbis

Here's the latest from Reuters on the planned attack on Syria. It's a story datelined Amman in Jordan.



The BBC is broadcasting an interview with the US defence secretary Chuck Hagel on the World at One now.

Here's the key point.

Robin Brant (@robindbrant)

US sec def chuck hagel tells BBC that american forces 'ready to go' if obama orders military strike on syria. seems all prep done.

August 27, 2013

I'll post full quotes later.

The debate on Thursday will run from 11.30am until 10pm, the Labour whips office has revealed.

Labour Whips (@labourwhips)

Recall of Commons on Thursday for debate on UK's response to chemical weapons attacks in Syria. House will sit 11.30am until 10pm

August 27, 2013

It's only a short tweet, but David Cameron's message about the recall of parliament on Thursday is actually rather revealing.

Cameron promises a "clear government motion" and a vote. There is no need for MPs to have a vote of this kind when parliament is recalled for an emergency during the summer recess (there was not one when parliament was recalled following the summer riots) and conceivably Cameron could have just delivered a statement. But that would not really have fulfilled his promise to let MPs "have a say". Instead, this means we are likely to get a full-blown debate, lasting six hours or so.

The government will have to have a plan by Thursday. At the moment, according to Number 10, Cameron and his colleagues are still considering options. But if Cameron is going to table a motion, it is going to have to say something. This suggests that within the next 36 hours Britain and its allies are going to have to clarify what military action they plan to take in response to Syria's use of chemical weapons. (Given everything that has been said by now, it is virtually inconceivable that there will not be a military response.)

The United Nations seems to have been sidelined. Cameron's comment suggests that the government is not particularly interested in waiting for the report from UN weapons inspectors in Damascus before deciding what to do next.

David Cameron has just posted this on Twitter.

David Cameron (@David_Cameron)


August 27, 2013

The United Nations says a visit by weapons inspectors in Damascas that was due to take place today has been delayed for 24 hours because of concerns about the safety of the inspection team. (I've corrected an earlier post here that summarised the statement wrongly. I misread it because the wording was not particularly clear.)



And in Iran, the parliament is going to debate suing the Americans for their role in the 1953 coup. This is also from AP.


Lawmakers will begin deliberations Wednesday over how to launch a formal complaint accusing the U.S. government of intervening in Iran's internal affairs and inflicting damages on the Persian state. The 290-seat house approved the urgent debate of the bill Tuesday in a session broadcast on state radio.



Here's the Guardian story about the declassified CIA documents.


In Egypt a Muslim Brotherhood leader has denied that the group is running a terror campaign. This is from the Associated Press.






According to the Washington Post, the military intervention being planned by the Americans in Syria would last for no more than two days. Here's an extract from its story.


Syrian foreign minister's press conference - Summary

Walid Muallem, the Syrian foreign minister, is still holding his press conference, but BBC News has lost its translation.

Here are the main points from what he's said so far.


He challenged the Americans to produce evidence justifying their claim that the Syrian regime was responsible.

He rejected claims that the Syrian government had obstructed the work of the UN weapons inspectors.

He accused the Americans of flouting international law.

He claimed that an American attack on Syria would benefit Israel and the al-Nusra Front, the jihadi opposition group.

He said that Syria would defend itself using "all means available" against any possible American attack.

While the press conference was going on, David Cameron arrived back in Downing Street. He was returning from Cornwall, where he had been on holiday.


Walid Muallem says we are living in an age where the law of the jungle applies. The Americans are breaching international law, he suggests.

Walid Muallem says a range of countries are opposed to Syria. The country should be "proud" it has survived", he says.

Walid Muallem says there may be an American attack on Syria.

Syria will defend itself by the means available, he says.

Walid Muallem is now taking questions.

Q: You said you had a cordial call with the Americans recently. But today a meeting between the Americans and the Russians was cancelled. Does that mean American action is inevitable?

Muallem says, regarding the cancellation of the US/Russia meeting, the Syrians were always sceptical about this anyway. Syria thinks the US does not want a political solution, because Israel wants the continuation of violence. The cancellation of the meeting confirms this.

On Russia, he says Syria/Russian relations are long-standing.

Walid Muallem says it is "pure imagination" to think that an attack by America will undermine support for the Syria government.

Americans should accept that what their government says about chemical weapons is "not true".

The UN inspectors have been given full cooperation by the Syrian govenrment, he says.

He says Syria wants to maintain friendly relations with Jordan.

The security of Jordan is linked to the security of Syria, he says.

Walid Muallem, the Syrian foreign minister, is still talking. (See 11.09am.)

He says William Hague, the British foreign minister, has been giving "wrong information" to the public about Syria's use of chemical weapons.

He also says John Kerry, the US secretary of state, has no evidence that Syria sanctioned the use of the weapons. He challenges Kerry to produce the evidence justifying the claims he made yesterday.

What other objectives could the Americans have for military intervention, he asks.

If they want to undermine Syrian morale, the Americans will fail. The Syrian people and the armed forces are resolute.

An American attack would help Israel, he says.

An attack would also benefit the al-Nusra Front, the jihadi opposition group, he says.

In Damascus Walid Muallem, the Syrian foreign minister, is holding a press conference. Sky News are covering it live.

He says the UN weapons inspectors told the Syrians which sites they wanted to visit. The Syrians agreed.

Yesterday the weapons inspectors visited a site under the control of Syrian forces. There were no problems.

But there was a problem when they visited an area outside Syrian control.

Last night the UN team said they wanted to visit another area. But this was under the control of armed groups, and they could not guarantee the team's safety.

Walid Muallem
Walid Muallem Photograph: /Sky News


Monzer Makhous, the Syrian National Coalition's ambassador to Paris, has told Al Arabiya that a "very important speech" will be made today about his country.


Elaborating more, he said that an international military action is on the sight and that the Syrian Free Army will do its part. The military actions, he noted, will be “comprehensive.”

According to this report for New Europe, the Americans have asked Greece to use two of its bases for a possible attack on Syria. Here's an extract.

The US government asked Greece to provide its military bases in Kalamata and Souda, in case Washington decides to directly intervene in Syria.

The two Greek military bases in Peloponnesus and Crete will be used by the US airforce and navy for transportation purposes. According to the Greek daily Kathimerini, the Greek government has agreed to help Washington, but the Greek Foreign Ministry had clarified that Greece is unwilling to participate in a possible direct intervention, due to fears of backlash violence.

Here's more detail about what China's official Xinhua news agency has been saying about the preparation for a military strike against Syria.





Syria has responded to last night's speech from John Kerry, the US secretary of state, saying that it was "undeniable" that chemical weapons had been used in the country. This is from the Associated Press.





Here's the full text of Kerry's speech.

And this is what they have been saying about the Syrian crisis in other world capitals.

Russia: Foreign ministry spokesman Alexander Lukashevich called on the international community to show "prudence" and observe international law. "Attempts to bypass the Security Council, once again to create artificial groundless excuses for a military intervention in the region are fraught with new suffering in Syria and catastrophic consequences for other countries of the Middle East and North Africa," he said in a statement.

China: The official Xinhua news agency, which can be read as a reflection of government thinking, similarly said the "current scenario" was "reminiscent of the lead-up to the Iraq War, which the United States staged with allegations about weapons of mass destruction that later turned out to be false." 

Turkey: Foreign minister Ahmet Davutoglu said of the alleged gas attack : "This is a crime against humanity and a crime against humanity should not go unanswered, what needs to be done must be done. Today, it is clear the international community is faced with a test." 

Australia: Kevin Rudd, the prime minister, spoke to Obama. He said afterwards: "I do not believe the world can simply turn a blind eye to the use of chemical weapons against a civilian population resulting in nearly 300 deaths, or more, and some 3,600 people hospitalised."


In London the prime minister's spokesman has just finished briefing journalists, mostly about Syria. Here are the main points.

Downing Street will announce later today whether parliament will be recalled to allow MPs to debate the Syria crisis and any military action by the UK. The prime minister's spokesman would not say whether a recall would involve a formal vote on a substantive motion, although it is hard to see how the government could avoid this.

The spokesman said that no decisions have yet been taken about what action the British government might take. But "it is reasonable to assume that our armed forces are making contingency plans", he said.

Any response would be "proportionate", the spokesman said. But what "proportionate" meant was "exactly what we are discussing at present".

Britain would only act in a way that was lawful, the spokesman said. But he would not say whether the government would publish its legal advice on possible military action.

Downing Street said that Cameron would not necessarily wait for the publication of the UN report on the use of chemical weapons in Syria before deciding what action to take.

Nicholas Watt has the latest from the UK government, confirming that contingency plans are being drawn up for military intervention in Syria:

Nicholas Watt (@nicholaswatt)

No 10 on Syria: it is reasonable to assume our armed forces are making contingency plans

August 27, 2013


In another seeming echo of 2003, oil prices are edging up amid concerns about wider disruption in the Middle East from any foreign intervention in Syria. Crude prices rose above $106 a barrel today, part of a 15% or so increase over the last three months, AP reports.

As for the pressure building on Cameron to allow MPs a say on any UK involvement in military action, we have a story on the moves so far here.

This morning Labour's shadow foreign secretary, Douglas Alexander, has done a round of interviews to push this view, also expressing scepticism about the feasibility of military action. He told BBC Radio 4's Today programme:

Of course parliament should be consulted. I don't think there is any legitimate ground for parliament not to be consulted.

I accept that there will be specific military information that reasonably can't be shared. But it is absolutely the right of parliament, and indeed of the public, to understand the evidence, to understand the case and to understand whether the objectives that are being set for the mission are adjudged to be credible and achievable...

I think that there should be a vote in Parliament after the government sets out its case.

Asked if this meant the government should heed a vote on MPs on the issue, he added:


On the prospect of military intervention itself, Alexander added:



On Blair, we have a story about his comments here, and the article itself is on the Times website, behind a paywall. But here's a flavour of what the former prime minister – who, of course, knows all about preparing for intervention in a Middle East country as UN inspectors hurry to finish their work – had to say.




Returning to Iran, a longtime ally of Assad, the warning came from a foreign ministry spokesman, Abbas Araqchi, at a press conference. He said:

We want to strongly warn against any military attack in Syria. There will definitely be perilous consequences for the region. These complications and consequences will not be restricted to Syria. It will engulf the whole region.

As a brief guide to what is coming up today:

UN inspectors are expected to attempt a second day of investigative work. As they approached the alleged attack site yesterday their convoy of vehicles was hit by sniper fire, forcing them briefly to retreat.

David Cameron's government faces calls from MPs to recall parliament before any decision is taken on intervention. The prime minister has cut short a holiday and is back in London.

Tony Blair has written a newspaper comment article calling for decisive action against Assad and Syria.

Iran has reiterated its opposition to foreign action in Syria, saying the conflict could then spread through the Middle East.


It is expected to be another very busy day connected to Syria as the US, UK and their allies edge closer towards seemingly likely military intervention following a suspected chemical attack last week on a rebel-held suburb of Damascus, which reportedly killed more than 1,000 people.

The rhetoric increased several notches last night with a speech by the US secretary of state, John Kerry, who described the attack as "cowardly" and "morally obscene" and said there seemed little doubt it was carried out by the forces of Syria's president, Bashar al-Assad.

The US and its allies face fierce opposition from other nations, not least Russia. The country's foreign minister, Sergei Lavrov, said yesterday he feared footage of the chemical attack might not be legitimate and that Russia would oppose any outside intervention.