A disappointed British Prime Minister announced that “the British Parliament, reflecting the views of the British people, does not want to see British military action.”
However, Cameron admitted that while he still believed in a necessity of a “tough response” to the use of deadly chemical weapons by the Syrian current regime, he would respect the will of Parliament.
Earlier this week, the Prime Minister had seemed poised to join the United States in possible military response to a deadly chemical attack that was reportedly conducted by Assad.
Terrible images of the hurt and dead lying on the floor drew the international resonanse, and Cameron recalled Parliament from its summer break for an emergency voting.
“The video footage illustrates some of the most sickening human suffering imaginable,” Cameron told lawmakers before the vote, insisting that the worst and most dangerous option is to “stand back and do nothing.”
But, as The Huffingtton Post reports, the push for strikes against Assad began to lose momentum as questions arosed about the intelligence underpinning the move. During a heated debate, the British Prime Minister conceded that there was still a sliver of uncertainty about whether the Syrian government truly was behind the attacks.
“In the end there is no 100 percent certainty about who is responsible,” Cameron said, although he insisted that officials were still as “as certain as possible” that Assad’s forces were responsible.
Defense Secretary Philip Hammond confirmed that British forces would not be involved in any military response to the last week’s attack, something he said would doubtless upset Washington – and please Assad.
“It is certainly going to place some strain on the special relationship,” Hammond told BBC radio. “The Americans do understand the parliamentary process that we have to go through…. Common sense must tell us that the Assad regime is going to be a little bit less uncomfortable tonight as a result of this decision in Parliament.”
Yesterday Britain insisted that the U.N. Security Council “should see findings from weapons inspectors before any military action is taken and that the British parliament should vote on the matter twice.”
The news comes the next day after the U.S. president vowed that the Syrian government would see “international consequences” for the chemical attack, but declared unequivocally that any military response would not involve the United States into another war in the region.
President Obama didn’t demonstrated any evidence to confirm his opinion that the Syrian goverment stays behinds the last week’s attack.
While the U.S. president announced that he is still evaluating possible military retaliation, he promised that any American response would send a “strong signal” to Assad.
“We have concluded that the Syrian government in fact carried these out,” Obama said during an interview with “NewsHour” on PBS. “And if that’s so, then there need to be international consequences.”