The United States, Britain, and France, conducted "precision strikes" on Syria on Friday, in response to a suspected chemical weapons attack that reportedly killed dozens in the rebel-held town of Douma.

The Pentagon said the strikes hit three targets believed to have been involved in creating chemical weapons.

The sites included the Barzah Research and Development Center near Damascus and the Him Shinshar chemical weapons complex near Homs.

The US military said the strikes "destroyed" Him Shinshar's chemical weapons storage facility, and damaged the chemical weapons bunker.

Defense Secretary Jim Mattis said "nothing is certain" when asked whether he believed the strikes would deter Syrian President Bashar Assad from using chemical weapons again.

"It was done on targets that we believed were selected to hurt the chemical weapons program. We confined it to the chemical weapons-type targets," he said.

Here are satellite photos showing what the sites looked like before and after the strikes:

SEE ALSO: Photos of US, UK, and French military strikes show just how close missiles got to Syria's capital city

DON'T MISS: Pentagon: US-led Syria strikes struck at 'heart' of chemical weapons program, but 'residual' capacity remains

BEFORE: The Him Shinshar chemical weapons bunker on April 13, 2018.

AFTER: The Him Shinshar chemical weapons bunker on April 14, 2018.

BEFORE: The Him Shimshar chemical weapons storage site on April 13, 2018.

• Boris Johnson refuses to rule out further UK military intervention in Syria.
• "There is no proposal on the table at the moment for further attacks because so far thank heavens the Assad regime have not been so foolish as to launch another chemical weapons attack," he told the BBC's Andrew Marr show.
• Friday's strikes were the biggest intervention so far by Western countries against Assad and his powerful ally Russia.

LONDON/BEIRUT (Reuters) - Western powers will study "options" if Syria's government again uses chemical weapons, but nothing is planned as yet, Britain's foreign minister said on Sunday, after raids on Syrian targets triggered heated debate over their legality and effectiveness.

U.S., French and British missile attacks struck at the heart of Syria's chemical weapons program on Saturday in retaliation for a suspected poison gas attack a week ago, although the restrained assault appeared unlikely to halt Syrian President Bashar al-Assad's progress in the seven-year-old civil war.

The bombing, denounced by Damascus and its allies as an illegal act of aggression, was the biggest intervention by Western countries against Assad and his powerful ally Russia.

But the three countries said the strikes were limited to Syria's chemical weapons capabilities and not aimed at toppling Assad or intervening in the civil war.

Speaking on British television, British Foreign Secretary (Minister) Boris Johnson threw his weight behind Prime Minister Theresa May's decision to take part in the attack, saying it was the right thing to do to deter further use of chemical weapons.

"There is no proposal on the table at the moment for further attacks because so far thank heavens the Assad regime have not been so foolish as to launch another chemical weapons attack," he told the BBC's Andrew Marr show.

His comments appeared in line with those of U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, Nikki Haley, who said at an emergency meeting of the U.N. Security Council that Trump told her that if Syria uses poisonous gas again, "The United States is locked and loaded."

The Western countries said the strikes were aimed at preventing more Syrian chemical weapons attacks after a suspected poison gas attack in Douma on April 7 killed up to 75 people. They blame Assad's government for the attack.

But British opposition leader Jeremy Corbyn said that the legal basis used to support the British role was debatable, adding that he would only support action backed by the United Nations Security Council.

"Good mood"

"The legal basis ... would have to be self-defense or the authority of the U.N. Security Council. The humanitarian intervention is a legally debatable concept at the present time," he said in an interview with the BBC on Sunday.

In Damascus, Assad told a group of visiting Russian lawmakers that Western missile strikes on his country were an act of aggression, Russian news agencies reported.

The agencies quoted the lawmakers as saying Assad was in a "good mood" and had praised the Soviet-era air defense systems used by Syria to help to repel the Western attacks.

Assad accepted an invitation to visit the Siberian region of Khanty-Mansi in Russia. It was not clear when the visit would take place.

He proclaimed on Twitter: "Mission accomplished," echoing former President George W. Bush, whose use of the same phrase in 2003 to describe the U.S. invasion of Iraq was widely ridiculed as violence there dragged on for years.

"We believe that by hitting Barzeh, in particular, we've attacked the heart of the Syrian chemicals weapon program," U.S. Lieutenant General Kenneth McKenzie said at the Pentagon.

Wreckage

However, McKenzie acknowledged elements of the program remain and he could not guarantee that Syria would be unable to conduct a chemical attack in the future.

There were no immediate reports of casualties.

Late on Saturday Syria time, a large explosion was heard in a Syrian government-controlled area in a rural region south of Aleppo, according to the Britain-based war monitor, the Syrian Observatory for Human Rights. The Observatory said the cause of the explosion was unknown, as well as its target.

Russian and Iranian military help over the past three years has allowed Assad to crush the rebel threat to topple him.

The United States, Britain and France have all participated in the Syrian conflict for years, arming rebels, bombing Islamic State fighters and deploying troops on the ground to fight that group. But they have refrained from targeting Assad's government, apart from a volley of U.S. missiles last year.

Syrian state media called them a "flagrant violation of international law," while Iranian Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei called it a crime and the Western leaders criminals.

Weapons watchdog

Washington described the strike targets as a center near Damascus for the research, development, production and testing of chemical and biological weapons; a chemical weapons storage site near the city of Homs; and another site near Homs that stored chemical weapons equipment and housed a command post.

U.N. Secretary-General Antonio Guterres urged all Security Council members to exercise restraint and avoid escalation in Syria, but said allegations of chemical weapons use demand an investigation.

Inspectors from the global chemical weapons watchdog OPCW were due to try to visit Douma to inspect the site of the suspected gas attack. Moscow condemned the Western states for refusing to wait for their findings.

Russia, whose ties with the West have sunk to levels of Cold War-era hostility, denies any gas attack happened in Douma and even said Britain staged it to whip up anti-Russian hysteria.

Syria agreed in 2013 to give up its chemical weapons after a nerve gas attack killed hundreds of people in Douma. Damascus is still permitted to have chlorine for civilian use, although its use as a weapon is banned. Allegations of Assad's chlorine use have been frequent during the war although, unlike nerve agents, chlorine did not produce mass casualties as seen last week.

Join the conversation about this story »

NOW WATCH: Why Russia is so involved in the Syrian Civil War

• US ambassador to the UN Nikki Haley announced on Sunday that the US will imminently impose a new rounds of sanctions on Russia.
• This comes days after the US, Britain, and France conducted "precision strikes" in Syria on Friday in response to an alleged chemical weapons attack by the Syrian government.
• "Russian sanctions will be coming down," Haley said during a CBS interview on Sunday. 

US ambassador to the United Nations Nikki Haley announced on Sunday that the US will imminently impose a new rounds of sanctions on Russia.

"Russian sanctions will be coming down," Haley said during an interview on CBS' "Face the Nation."  "[Treasury Secretary Steven] Mnuchin will be announcing those on Monday if he hasn't already and they will go directly to any sort of companies that were dealing with equipment related to Assad and chemical weapons use."

The announcement of new sanctions comes shortly after the US, Britain, and France conducted "precision strikes" in Syria on Friday in response to a suspected chemical weapons attack that reportedly killed dozens, many of them children, in the rebel-held Syrian town of Douma.

Syrian President Bashar al-Assad's regime was suspected of orchestrating a chlorine attack, which occurred on April 7.

Haley insisted in multiple interviews on Sunday that the US's actions against the Syrian regime and its supporters, which include Russia, have been aggressive. 

"I think everyone is going to feel it at this point," she said on CBS. "I think everyone knows that we sent a strong message, and our hope is that they listen to it."

Haley has been one of the administration's sharpest critics of Russia, particularly with regard to its relationship with Syria. Russia has long backed the Assad regime and has repeatedly vetoed UN Security Council resolutions concerning chemical weapons.

"Assad knew that Russia had its back, Assad knew that Russia would cover for them at the United Nations, and Assad got reckless, and he used it in a way that was far more aggressive," Haley said on "Fox News Sunday". "We have to be conscious of the fact that we can’t allow even the smallest use of chemical weapons."

This comes after the Trump administration announced another set of sanctions earlier this month on 24 wealthy Russians and government officials, as well as over a dozen Russian-controlled entities. 

Those sanctions targeted seven Russian oligarchs and 17 senior government officials who are closely aligned with the Kremlin. The US also targeted 12 companies operated by the sanctioned oligarchs; Rosoboroneksport, a state-owned weapons manufacturer known to have transported arms to the Syrian regime; and Rosoboroneksport's subsidiary, the Russian Financial Corporation Bank.

The actions were meant to target some of Russia's wealthiest citizens, many of whom are closely linked to Russian President Vladimir Putin.

Sonam Sheth and David Choi contributed reporting.  

SEE ALSO: The UN Security Council rejects Russia's resolution to condemn the US-led strikes on Syria

DON'T MISS: Satellite photos show what Syrian sites looked like before and after the US strikes

Join the conversation about this story »

NOW WATCH: Jared Kushner and Ivanka Trump tried to cut a secret deal with Planned Parenthood — here's what happened

• A Russian journalist who wrote about Russian mercenaries in Syria has died from injuries sustained after falling from a balcony.
• Maxim Borodin, 32, died at a hospital on Sunday after falling from his fifth-floor balcony in Yekaterinburg on Thursday.
• Borodin's death was deemed a suicide by officials.

A Russian journalist who wrote about Russian mercenaries in Syria has died from injuries he sustained after falling from a balcony.

Maxim Borodin, 32, died at a hospital on Sunday after falling from his fifth-floor balcony in Yekaterinburg on Thursday, according to the Associated Press and RFERL.

The Associated Press reported that it was unclear how Borodin fell, but RFERL reported that officials are considering his death to be a suicide.

Borodin wrote for a news website called Novy Den where he covered crime and corruption, RFERL reported. He recently helped break the story about the deaths of Russian Wagner Group mercenaries from Asbest who were killed in Syria during a fight with the US military in February.

Borodin's editor at Novy Den, Polina Rumyantseva, said on Sunday that she doesn't believe he committed suicide, RFERL reported.

Reporters Without Borders tweeted on Sunday that the circumstances of Borodin's death were "suspicious," and that they want "a thorough, impartial investigation."

The Wagner Group has about 2,500 mercenaries in Syria, according to the BBC.

SEE ALSO: How Russian mercenaries use secret flights to travel to Syria

Join the conversation about this story »

• The dual threat of military action in Syria and further sanctions on Iran saw oil prices rised by 8% last week.
• Analysts from RBC have pointed to a “fear premium” for oil prices as a broader regional conflict plays out in the Middle East.
• Last week’s rally also caused a breakout from oil’s recent trading range, which means technical factors suggest another move higher from here.

There are increasing signs that a break above $80 for a barrel of oil is now on the cards, after benchmark Brent crude prices closed on Friday night at $72.58 a barrel.

That capped a weekly gain of 7.9%, while West Texas Intermediate (WTI) oil closed at 67.39, which left both measures at their highest level since 2014.

Heightened geo-political tensions have been the main catalyst for the recent price action, and the US-led attack on chemical weapons facilities in Syria over the weekend did nothing to dispel the threat of further conflict in the region.

Markets are also assessing the prospect of a breakdown in the nuclear disarmament deal between the US and Iran, with President Donald Trump pushing for key changes by May 12 which could see the US withdraw from the agreement.

That being said, analysts from Barclays Bank aren’t putting too much weight on the outcome of potential changes to the US-Iran nuclear deal.

“Yes, it should kill the prospects for medium-term oil investment, and yes it could destabilize the region further, but we struggle to accept a narrative that the market had been expecting big gains in Iranian output over the next several years anyway,” Barclays said.

The analysts forecast that geo-politial tensions will keep oil elevated above $70 a barrel through April and May, before prices decline towards $60 a barrel by the end of the year.

Prior to last week’s rally, oil prices were already trending higher, with recent statements from OPEC indicating it’s in no rush to to put a halt to its current round of supply cuts.

AxiTrader’s Greg McKenna noted this morning the latest price-action marks a key break from oil’s recent trading range.

So in addition to market fundamentals and geo-political developments, technical factors also point to another move higher for oil prices.

“In the case of Brent the target is now $81.00-$81.50 a barrel while for WTI it’s around $74-$75,” McKenna said.

Here’s McKenna’s assessment of the technical price action in West Texas Intermediate:

Among the reasons to be more cautious about the bullish price-action, there’s always the prospect that US shale oil producers will respond to higher prices by ramping up production.

Back in January, analysts from CBA cited rising US production as one of the main factors that will lead to a sharp reversal in oil prices later this year.

And a report in the Financial Times addressed the latest escalation in Syria may be reminsicint of previous military interventions in the middle-east which threatened global oil supplies.

History shows that traders often bid up oil prices as the threat of military strikes increases.

But once military begins, the outcome often becomes more clear — particularly if it involves surgical airstrikes rather than a broader offensive — and that certainty can give rise to a corresponding selloff.

However, research from RBC Capital Markets indicates market participants should be aware of a larger regional conflict playing out in the middle-east that’s giving rise to a “fear premium” for oil prices.

“With Syria tensions escalating, the critical concern is that the conflict could ignite a regional conflagration,” RBC said.

“Meanwhile, the proxy war raging in Yemen presents a clear risk to regional energy supplies given attempted attacks on Saudi targets.”

McKenna concluded that traders will have to consider how the conflicts playing out on various fronts will affect the outlook for oil in the near-term.

“Overall, even if this ultimately proves an unsustainable spike, a run higher still looks likely when we add the technical picture to the fundamental backdrop,” McKenna said.

Join the conversation about this story »

NOW WATCH: Wall Street's biggest bull explains why trade war fears are way overblown

• Theresa May prepares for a crunch Commons debate on Syria after she authorised air strikes against the regime.
• Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn will seek a vote at the end of an "emergency debate" on the issue.
• The UK government is leaving the door open to support future strikes against Assad.
• Labour release legal advice questioning the legality of the strikes.

LONDON — Theresa May has put her MPs on alert for a crunch debate on the UK's involvement in Syrian air strikes after the Labour party questioned the legality of the strikes against President Assad's regime.

The prime minister authorised strikes against chemical weapons facilities in Syria in the early hours of Saturday morning without first seeking the consent of parliament. 

The opposition Labour party believes this is a breach of recent historical parliamentary convention which holds that MPs must be given a vote on military action by the UK.

Downing Street denies this, saying the convention allows military action to be taken without a vote under "emergency" circumstances when any delay would put the lives of armed services personel at risk.

However, on Monday Labour's deputy leader Tom Watson released legal advice questioning the legality of the strikes. The advice by Oxford University law professor Dapo Akande accuses the government of "[ignoring] the structure of the international law rules relating to the use of force," against another state.

"Contrary to the position of the government, neither the UN charter nor customary international law permits military action on the basis of the doctrine of humanitarian intervention," it states.

The Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn will on Monday push for a vote on the action at the end of a planned "emergency debate" called by the government this afternoon. Both the government and opposition parties have submitted requests for a debate on issue. The House of Commons speaker will decide later on Monday which, if any, motions will be debated.

May's decision to hold an emergency debate under Section 24 powers means that any vote will not be binding. SO24 votes are typically on bland motions acknowledging the existence of the debate, although opposition parties have previously submitted stronger-worded motions.

Corbyn opposes the current action by the US, UK and France and insists that any future intervention should only go ahead with the approval of the UN — where Russia holds a veto.

"Saturday’s attack on sites thought to be linked to Syria’s chemical weapons capability was both wrong and misconceived," the Labour leader writes in the Guardian today.

"It was either purely symbolic — a demolition of what appear to be empty buildings, already shown to be entirely ineffective as a deterrent — or it was the precursor to wider military action. That would risk a reckless escalation of the war."

However, in a statement to MPs May will insist that the government could not "wait to alleviate further humanitarian suffering caused by chemical weapons attacks."

"Let me be absolutely clear: we have acted because it is in our national interest to do so," she will add.

"It is in our national interest to prevent the further use of chemical weapons in Syria - and to uphold and defend the global consensus that these weapons should not be used.

"For we cannot allow the use of chemical weapons to become normalised - either within Syria, on the streets of the UK or elsewhere."

A spokesperson for the prime minister 

The Foreign Secretary Boris Johnson on Sunday left the door open for future strikes against Syria, should Assad use chemical weapons again.

Conservative MPs have been put on a "three line whip" to attend today's debate under the expectation that Labour and other opposition parties will force a vote.

SEE ALSO: A 'huge argument' within Theresa May's government is delaying her decision on post-Brexit immigration for the UK

Join the conversation about this story »

NOW WATCH: Stop blaming violent video games for mass shootings

• President Donald Trump rallied US allies for a trilateral strike on chemical weapons sites in Syria, and it looks to have achieved its goal.
• Syria has deep, horrific problems beyond chemical weapons use, and the Pentagon admits it didn't even take out all its chemical weapons.
• Instead, the strike was a public spanking for the Assad regime, which won't change anything on the battlefield or make life better for most Syrians.
• Viewed narrowly as an attempt by the allies to punish Syria's government, it was a roaring success. 

President Donald Trump this weekend pulled off a large-scale attack on sites thought to contribute to Syria's chemical weapons program — but even the Pentagon admits that might not be enough.

The Pentagon says the strikes, made by the US, France, and the UK, took out the "heart" of Syria's chemical weapons program. But Syrian President Assad, whom the UN has linked to dozens of gas attacks, still maintains "residual" capabilities of creating and using chemical weapons, it said.

Assad still has his jets and helicopters. The air wing in Assad's army that the US suspects of having dropped the gas bombs went unpunished. None of Assad's generals were bombed for carrying out illegal orders to drop gas bombs on civilians. 

Defense Secretary Jim Mattis called the strike "precise and proportionate," and while the strike may have used precise, smart, new weapons, it's unclear what Mattis thinks the strike is in proportion to.

What did the strikes change on the ground?

Hundreds of thousands of Syrians have been killed during the seven-year civil war, which kicked off when Assad violently responded to pro-democracy rallies in 2011.

Millions in Syria have been displaced by the conflict, many have been tortured and abducted. Large swaths of the country fell under jihadist rule. An entire generation of Syrian children are growing up knowing only war.

The strikes on Friday night addressed none of that. The 105 weapons used against three facilities across Syria only targeted chemical weapons production in Syria, and didn't even remove all of those weapons or capabilities.

Instead, the strikes made a big show of punishing the Assad government for its alleged use of chemical weapons, and did so on a shaky legal premise. 

Chemical warfare can continue in Syria. Widespread fighting, casualties, and abuses of power in the deeply unstable country will continue with near certainty. A hundred missiles, or even a thousand, couldn't hope to reverse the deep problems faced by Syrians every day, or to punish Assad and his inner circle as much as they have punished their own people, but Trump never actually tried to.

Performative allyship in cruise missile form

Assad, a leader whom Trump calls an animal who gasses his own people, remains in power. Chemical weapons remain in Syria. The world is no closer to finding peace there.

But Assad has been publicly spanked by the US, the UK, and France. Three nations told Syria, and its Russian backers, they meant business after years of turning a blind eye to reports of horrors in the country.

The Syria strike, viewed as a public spanking rather than a decisive military campaign, was a "mission accomplished" not because it changed anything, but because they made it loud. 

Join the conversation about this story »

NOW WATCH: Why Russia is so involved in the Syrian Civil War

• French President Emmanuel Macron claimed credit for key elements of US policy on Syria.
• He said the plan to limit recent airstrikes to chemical weapons facilities were his.
• He also told French TV that he persuaded Trump not to pull US troops out of Syria.
• Macron and Trump have made much of their close personal relationship.
• Nonetheless, Trump is claiming the Syria strike as his personal success, and the White House rejected claims of a Macron-inspired U-turn.

French President Emmanuel Macron said that he was the mastermind behind Donald Trump's airstrike on Syria, and has persuaded him to station troops in the country for the long term.

In a major interview broadcast Sunday night on BFMTV, Macron took the credit for the strike in Syria, which Trump has characterised as a personal success.

Macron said he thrashed out a list of targets with Trump, and persuaded him to limit action to chemical weapons facilities, rather than a broader strike on Bashar al-Assad's regime.

He also claimed to have convinced Trump to ditch an idea to pull troops out of Syria, and instead commit to staying.

Macron told the cameras: 

"Ten days ago President Trump said the US wanted to disengage in Syria. We convinced him, we convinced him that it was necessary to stay there.

"I think that on the diplomatic plan there that took place, the three strikes were one element that was for me not the most essential, I reassure you, we convinced him that he had to stay there for the long term.

"The second thing that we were successful in convincing him was to limit the strikes on chemical weapon [sites] after things got carried away over tweets."

Here's a video of his comment (in French):

Macron and Trump have made much of their close personal relationship, which Business Insider has previously characterised as a bromance.

The French leader invited his US counterpart to Paris last summer to celebrate Bastille Day, where Trump witnessed a grand military parade that inspired plans to do something similar in Washington, D.C.

In return, Macron is the first world leader whom Trump has invited to make a full state visit.

Trump has not responded directly to Macron's claims. However, White House press secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders seemed to downplay Macron's influence, and said "the US mission has not changed."

Join the conversation about this story »

NOW WATCH: How a series of deadly Russian apartment bombings in 1999 led to Putin's rise to power

• European Union foreign ministers looked unlikely to join the United States on Monday in imposing new economic sanctions on Russia or Syria over chemical weapons attacks.
• The United States is due to announce new economic sanctions on Russia aimed at companies it alleges were dealing with equipment related to chemical weapons.
• The European Union has already imposed a range of economic sanctions on Syrian President Bashar al-Assad's government, cutting off most diplomatic and economic links, but to no avail.

LUXEMBOURG (Reuters) - European Union foreign ministers looked unlikely to join the United States on Monday in imposing new economic sanctions on Russia or Syria over chemical weapons attacks that prompted the first coordinated Western air strikes in Syria.

After Britain and France joined the United States in missile salvoes meant to cripple Syrian chemical arms facilities and prevent their further use, Western leaders sought to emphasis diplomacy, with an EU foreign ministers meeting in Luxembourg.

"It is very important to stress (the strikes are) not an attempt to change the tide of the war in Syria or to have a regime change," British Foreign Secretary Boris Johnson told reporters on arrival at the meeting.

"I'm afraid the Syrian war will go on in its horrible, miserable way. But it was the world saying that we've had enough of the use of chemical weapons," he said.

In Luxembourg, ministers were set to release a statement to keep open the option of new travel bans and asset freezes on Syrians the West accuses of links to the April 7 poison gas attacks on a rebel enclave outside Damascus. But diplomats foresaw no decisions on Monday, especially against Russians.

"We have to keep pushing to get a ceasefire and humanitarian aid through the (United Nations) Security Council and eventually a peace process," Dutch Foreign Minister Stef Blok told reporters.

"The only solution is a peace process through the Security Council," said Blok, who met his Russian counterpart Sergei Lavrov in Moscow on Friday.

The United States is due to announce new economic sanctions on Russia aimed at companies it alleges were dealing with equipment related to chemical weapons, according to U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, Nikki Haley.

However, EU diplomats cautioned that until European governments had more idea of what the United States was planning, it was not possible to quickly follow suit. In the past, EU measures have sometimes come months after Washington's.

Russia is Europe's biggest energy supplier and, while the EU has imposed significant sanctions on Moscow's financial, energy and defense sectors over the crisis in Ukraine, close ties between Russia and some EU members complicate discussions about new punitive measures.

The European Union has already imposed a range of economic sanctions on Syrian President Bashar al-Assad's government, cutting off most diplomatic and economic links, but to no avail.

Within the EU, which is due to hold an international donor conference for Syria next week, most governments now agree that Assad cannot continue as president for peace talks to succeed.

"There will be a solution involving everyone who has influence on the region," German Foreign Minister Heiko Maas said in Luxembourg. "Nobody can imagine someone who uses chemical weapons against his own people to be part of this solution."

SEE ALSO: Trump's Syria strike achieves goal of loudly, publicly spanking Assad regime — but nothing else

Join the conversation about this story »

NOW WATCH: What will happen when Earth's north and south poles flip

• Russia may have tampered with the site of an alleged chemical weapons attack in Syria's Douma, the U.S. envoy to the global watchdog said on Monday.
• "It is our understanding the Russians may have visited the attack site. It is our concern that they may have tampered with it with the intent of thwarting the efforts of the OPCW Fact-Finding Mission to conduct an effective investigation," said a US official.
• A diplomatic source told Reuters evidence may have been removed while inspectors negotiated access with Syrian authorities.

THE HAGUE (Reuters) - Russia may have tampered with the site of an alleged chemical weapons attack in Syria's Douma, the U.S. envoy to the global watchdog said on Monday, urging the body to condemn the continuing use of banned chemical weapons.

The comments came during a closed-door meeting at the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons, convened after an April 7 attack in the town of Douma, outside the Syrian capital, in which dozens of people were allegedly killed with poison gas.

"It is long overdue that this council condemns the Syrian government for its reign of chemical terror and demands international accountability for those responsible for these heinous acts," U.S. Ambassador Kenneth Ward said in comments obtained by Reuters.

"It is our understanding the Russians may have visited the attack site. It is our concern that they may have tampered with it with the intent of thwarting the efforts of the OPCW Fact-Finding Mission to conduct an effective investigation."

The United States, Britain and France fired more than 100 missiles at three alleged chemical weapons facilities on Friday, angering Syria's military backer Moscow, which threatened to retaliate.

President Donald Trump said the strikes had accomplished their aim of undermining efforts by the Syrian government to produce and use chemical weapons again in violation of the Chemical Weapons Convention.

OPCW inspectors were visiting sites in Douma on Monday where they were aiming to collect samples, interview witnesses and document evidence to determine whether banned toxic munitions were used.

It has been more than a week since the attack in which witnesses and Western governments described helicopters dropping sarin and chlorine bombs that killed many children and women hiding from clashes between rebels and government troops.

A diplomatic source told Reuters evidence may have been removed while inspectors negotiated access with Syrian authorities.

Syria and Russia deny chemical weapons were used in the final offensive that captured Douma, a rebel-held territory east of Damascus.

The British envoy to the OPCW said it had recorded 390 allegations of the use of banned chemicals in Syria since 2014, and that a failure by the OPCW to act risked allowing "further barbaric use of chemical weapons".

Syria joined the OPCW, the organization tasked with monitoring adherence to the 1997 convention, in 2013 after a sarin gas attack that killed hundreds of people in Ghouta. The move was part of a joint Russian-U.S. deal that averted military action threatened by then-president Barack Obama.

Russian President Vladimir Putin warned on Sunday that further Western attacks on Syria would bring chaos to world affairs, as Washington prepared to increase pressure on Russia with new economic sanctions.

Members of the 41-seat executive council of the OPCW were due to discuss the alleged use of prohibited toxins in Syria, but were not expected to reach any agreement about a response.

The organization, which needs a two-thirds majority to take decisions, has been undermined by deep political division over the use of chemical weapons by the Syrian government.

The OPCW inspectors will not assign blame for attacks. A joint United Nations-OPCW mission concluded that troops under Syrian President Bashar al-Assad had used chemical weapons several times in recent years, including in a sarin attack a year ago in the town of Khan Sheikhoun that killed nearly 100 people.

SEE ALSO: Trump's Syria strike achieves goal of loudly, publicly spanking Assad regime — but nothing else

Join the conversation about this story »

NOW WATCH: What will happen when Earth's north and south poles flip

• When President Donald Trump threatened to strike Syria, the US Navy only had one destroyer in the region — leading people to assume that it take part in the strike.
• But when the attack occurred, that ship didn't fire anything — which may have been a distraction ploy.
• Instead, ships in the Red Sea fired a large portion of the missiles, while Syria and its Russian ally apparently failed entirely to defend it.
• Russian threats to counter-attack also ultimately came to nothing.

When President Donald Trump threatened to send missiles at Syria — despite Russia's promises to counter-attack — all eyes turned towards the US Navy's sole destroyer in the region. But that may have been a trick.

Pundits openly scoffed at Trump's announcement of the strike days in advance, especially considering his criticism of Barack Obama for similar talk, but the actual strike appeared to go down well.

In April 2017,  two US Navy destroyers in the eastern Mediterranean steamed into the region, let off 59 cruise missiles in response to suspected gas attacks by the Syrian government, and left unpunished and unpursued.

But this time, Russian officials threatened to shoot down US missiles, and potentially the ships that launched them, if they attacked Syria. A retired Russian admiral spoke candidly about sinking the USS Donald Cook, the only destroyer in the region.

When the strike happened, the Cook didn't fire a shot, and a source tell Bloomberg News it was a trick.

Instead, a US submarine, the USS John Warner, fired the missiles while submerged in the eastern Mediterranean, presenting a much more difficult target than a destroyer on the surface. Elsewhere in the sea, a French navy frigate let off three missiles.

But the bulk of the firing came from somewhere else entirely — the Red Sea. 

Near Egypt, the USS Monterey, a Ticonderoga-class guided-missile cruiser fired 30 Tomahawk cruise missiles, and the USS Laboon, an Arleigh Burke-class destroyer shot 7, accounting for about a third of the total 105 missiles fired.

Combined with a trilateral air assault from a US B-1B Lancer bomber and UK and French fighter jets, the attack ended up looking considerably different than last year's punitive strike.

Photos from the night of the attack show Syrian air defenses firing missile interceptors on unguided trajectories, suggesting they were simply blind fired, and did not target or intercept incoming missiles. 

“No Syrian weapon had any effect on anything we did,” Lieutenant General Kenneth McKenzie told reporters of the strike on Saturday, calling the strike "precise, overwhelming and effective."

Syria said it shot down 71 of the missiles fired, but no evidence has yet surfaced to vindicate that claim. During the last strike, the US admitted when one of its Tomahawks failed to reach its target due to an error with the missile.

SEE ALSO: Trump's Syria strike achieves goal of loudly, publicly spanking Assad regime — but nothing else

Join the conversation about this story »

NOW WATCH: Why Russia is so involved in the Syrian Civil War

• Oil prices fall on Monday as Western leaders hint at no more action in Syria.
• Fears that intervention from the West could disrupt supply pushed up oil prices last week.
• Follow the live price of oil.

LONDON — The price of oil fell sharply on Monday as traders started to see a decreased likelihood of further escalation between Western powers and Syria, following Friday night's air strikes on the conflict-stricken nation.

Both major oil benchmarks have fallen on Monday morning. Brent oil — the international benchmark — is down 1.36% to trade at $71.63, while the more US-focused WTI oil is 1.23% lower at $66.56, as of around 1.10 p.m. BST (8.10 a.m. ET).

A coalition of the USA, UK, and France led targeted strikes on bases in Syria on Friday evening. Some commentators expected more strikes may have been planned.

However, on Sunday, British foreign secretary Boris Johnson told the media that the UK has no current plans for more strikes, while President Trump tweeted over the weekend "Mission Accomplished!"

A lack of further action is a negative for oil prices. Traders reason that action in the region would disrupt oil production, creating a supply shortage, and pushing up prices. The lack of action removes this potential supply squeeze, driving up prices.

Oil last week hit levels not seen since late 2014, with Brent hitting a high of close to $73 per barrel as the tensions in the Middle East simmered.

Jasper Lawler, the head of research at London Capital Group, believes there is a distinct possibility that tensions could escalate again, supporting the recent price rises in oil.

"Crude oil is already seeing some profit taking as the markets open, however with geopolitical tensions in the Middle East strained, the price of crude is expected to remain supported at these elevated levels," Lawler wrote in an email on Monday morning.

"Any slight escalation in tensions could impact on global oil supplies which are looking particularly vulnerable. Furthermore, given Iran is a major backer of Syria the re-imposing of Iran sanctions remains a very real possibility."

Oils fall is also being driven by signs that output of oil in the USA is set to rise.

"Another source of pressure came from U.S. energy companies; seven oil rigs were added in the week to 13 April, bringing the total count to 815, a level last seen in March 2015," Hussein Sayed, chief market strategist at FXTM said in an email.

SEE ALSO: Foreign Secretary Boris Johnson refuses to rule out further UK intervention in Syria — as Western powers consider 'options'

Join the conversation about this story »

NOW WATCH: A $700 billion investor dispels one of the market's most common myths — and explains what it means for your portfolio

• Photos of the missile strike launched by the US, the UK, and France on targets in Syria on Friday night appear to show Syrian defenses firing blindly and wildly missing.
• An expert told Business Insider that it didn't look as though the Syrian missile interceptors flew the way they'd have to in order to intercept the cruise missiles.
• Syria says it knocked down 71 of the 105 missiles fired, but the US says all missiles hit their targets.
• Satellite photos appear to show that the missiles hit.

Photos of the missile strike launched by the US, the UK, and France on targets in Syria on Friday night appear to show the Syrian defenses firing blindly in a wild and most likely failed attempt to intercept the missiles.

Before the strike — launched in response to what the US and its allies say was a chemical attack orchestrated by the Syrian government on Syrian civilians — Russia had threatened to shoot down US missiles heading for Syria and then attack the platforms that launched them. A retired Russian admiral elaborated on that threat, saying Russia would sink the USS Donald Cook with a torpedo if it fired on Syria.

Despite being in the area, the Cook didn't fire a shot — and it possibly served as a distraction while cruise missiles poured in from ships, submarines, and jets in an attack that the Pentagon says succeeded in that each hit.

But Russia and Syria begged to differ, saying missile defenses took out 71 of the 105 missiles fired.

Gen. Joseph Dunford, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, confirmed that Russian guns and missiles remained silent during the strike on Friday, according to the Fox News reporter Lucas Tomlinson.

Tomlinson added that Dunford said the only response was the Syrian military's firing surface-to-air missiles after the strike — to no effect.

The US maintains that Syria fired its missiles after the strike, possibly in an attempt to save face.

"Most of the launches occurred after our strike was over," US Marine Corps Lt. Gen. Kenneth F. McKenzie, the Joint Staff director, said of Syria's interceptor fires. "When you shoot iron into the air without guidance, it has to come down somewhere."

Russia fields some of the world's best air defenses in Syria, but Syria itself has older platforms with limited capability. And an expert told Business Insider it looked like a big miss on Friday.

Take a look at this photo:

Notice the streaks of light coming from hills around Damascus, Syria's capital — these are most likely Syria's missile defense sites, which would be why the missiles appear to be taking off from Damascus, whereas the US and allies' missiles were rushing toward it.

In every picture of the interceptors, they appear to take a ballistic trajectory — or a smooth, arched path.

"The trajectory that I've seen from footage of reported Syrian SAMs don't match up with what I'd expect to see for intercept attempts against low-flying cruise missiles," Justin Bronk, an air-combat expert at the Royal United Services Institute, told Business Insider. "I don't believe the Russian/Syrian intercept claims."

In fact, the Syrian defenses appear to have fired blind. If the missiles had targets, they look to have failed to maneuver toward them.

Normally, an interceptor missile doesn't fly on a smooth arc and would instead whip around quickly to find and collide with the missiles. If the Syrian defenses fired after the US-led strike, it would make sense that they would have no target and fly uninterrupted.

"We fully expect a significant disinformation campaign over the coming days by those who have aligned themselves with the Assad regime," Secretary of Defense James Mattis told reporters after the strike.

Satellite imagery after the attack appeared to show the US had hit its three targets.

For comparison, look at how the US and allies' cruise missiles flew in a jagged pattern as they stalked their way to a target, and imagine how an interceptor would have had to maneuver in the air to catch one:

SEE ALSO: The US Navy appears to have fooled Russia and Syria with a warship ruse before the strike

Join the conversation about this story »

NOW WATCH: Why Russia is so involved in the Syrian Civil War

The B-1B Lancer was one of many aircraft that the US, France, and UK used in Friday's strike on Syrian government compounds.

The Lancer is a long-range, multi-role heavy bomber that dropped Joint Air-to-Surface Standoff Missiles, according to The Drive. This would be the first time the munition was used in combat.

The US has not divulged where the Lancers took off, but they may have left from al Udeid Air Base in Qatar, The Drive reported. Either way, the US released a picture of one of the B-1s being refueled by a KC-10 on the day of the strike.

Here's what the Lancer can do and what we know it did on Friday:

SEE ALSO: The US, UK, and France teamed up for missile strikes in Syria — here's everything we know they used

The B-1B Lancer is a long-range, multi-role heavy bomber that was developed in the 1970s as a replacement for the B-52.

Source: US Air Force

It was first used in combat in 1998, and was heavily used in Operation Iraqi Freedom during the Iraq War, dropping nearly 40% of all the coalition's munitions.

The Lancer, which is made by Boeing — one of the largest defense contractors and political donors in the US — will continue to be the backbone of the US strategic bomber force until about 2040.

Its four General Electric F101-GE-102 turbofan engines each provide the Lancer with more than 30,000 pounds of thrust.

Source: US Air Force

• US President Donald Trump ordered air strikes against Syrian targets over the weekend.
• The attack was intended to punish Syrian President Bashar Assad and his government's reported and deadly use of chemical weapons.
• Satellites photographed the region from space before and after the airstrikes.
  
• New satellite images show the devastation to a Syrian research facility allegedly involved in Assad's chemical-weapons program.

Late Friday night, the US military launched Tomahawk missiles against Syrian locations allegedly involved in the production, storage, and use of chemical weapons.

Syrian President Bashar Assad and his government are suspected of having used nerve-agent and chlorine gases against people living in Douma, Syria, on April 7, killing dozens and injuring hundreds of men, women, and children.

In response, President Donald Trump ordered Friday's strike, which caused devastation to bunkers, storage facilities, and research centers.

"It was done on targets that we believed were selected to hurt the chemical weapons program," Defense Secretary Jim Mattis said following the attack. "We confined it to the chemical weapons-type targets."

Satellites in space, including DigitalGlobe's WorldView-3 observatory, photographed the aftermath— but clouds obscured several early images.

However, the satellite-imaging company released new images on Monday that clearly show the Barzah Scientific Research Facility in Damascus, Syria, on April 15, 2018.

"Today's image provides a better, clear look at the complex," a representative for DigitalGlobe told Business Insider in an email.

Use the slider below to compare two space-based views of the research center, from Friday, before the strike, and Sunday, after the strike.

The new image shows that several large buildings on the campus were destroyed by missiles.

The surgical precision of the missiles is apparent, given the number of nearby buildings left standing.

'Nothing is for certain'

The US-led attack took place in coordination with France and the UK, and it involved 105 missiles from the three countries. That's almost twice the number Trump used to attack Syrian air fields in April 2017.

Estimates suggest the trilateral attack, with a cost of about $1.4 million per missile, cost at least $147 million.

Trump launched the strike without authorization from Congress, despite his frequent past criticisms of former President Barack Obama for establishing a "red line" in 2013 for striking Syria. (Obama reportedly never followed through to ensure the Iran nuclear deal succeeded.)

"What will we get for bombing Syria besides more debt and a possible long term conflict? Obama needs Congressional approval," Trump tweeted on August 29, 2013.

Among recent presidents, including Obama and Trump, launching air strikes is common and not necessarily illegal— if part of limited, one-off attacks.

When reporters asked Mattis if the air strikes will dissuade Assad and his regime's use of chemical weapons, he said "nothing is certain in these kinds of matters."

Michelle Mark and Sonam Sheth contributing reporting to this post.

SEE ALSO: Here's why the nerve agent reportedly used on Syrian men, women, and children is so deadly

DON'T MISS: These maps show how much damage a North Korean thermonuclear weapon could do to major American cities

Join the conversation about this story »

NOW WATCH: There's a place at the bottom of the Pacific Ocean where hundreds of giant spacecraft go to die

The US, France, and the UK conducted missile strikes on Syrian government compounds on Friday.

The US fired Tomahawk missiles from the USS Monterey, USS Laboon, USS Higgins, and USS John Warner— in addition to JASSMs from B-1B Lancers.

On Monday, the Pentagon released short videos of Tomahawks being fired from the four US Navy ships that conducted the strikes.

The Tomahawks fired by the USS John Warner were released underwater since the Warner is a Virginia-class attack submarine, which was recently commissioned in 2015.

The Higgins and Laboon are destroyers, and the Monterey is a cruiser — they all fired Tomahawks above water.

Check out the videos below:

SEE ALSO: The US used the B-1B Lancer long-range bomber to strike Syria — here's what it can do

This video below shows the Higgins firing three Tomahawks in under 40 seconds.

And this one shows the Higgins firing another.

Here's the Monterey firing one.

• Russian warships and subs reportedly tracked a British submarine in the eastern Mediterranean Sea in the days before the latest strikes in Syria.
• Russian and NATO submarines have come into increasing contact in the waters around Europe in recent years.

A British Astute-class attack submarine was closely pursued by Russian subs and warships in the days leading up to the latest US-led strikes in Syria, according to The Times of London, citing military sources.

The days-long encounter reportedly played out during the second week of April, as Prime Minister Theresa May was deciding whether to join the strikes on targets in Syria. May reportedly ordered British subs to move within missile range of Syria in preparation for those strikes.

A UK Astute-class sub in the area was hunted by at least one but possibly two Russian submarines nicknamed "the Black Hole," The Times said, referring to the Russian navy's Improved Kilo-class diesel-electric subs.

The Astute class "are the largest, most advanced and most powerful attack submarines ever operated by the Royal Navy,"according to the UK Ministry of Defense. The British sub in question was maneuvering to get within range of targets in Syria, The Times reports.

Two Russian frigates and an anti-submarine aircraft are also believed to have joined the search for the British sub, which reportedly spent several days trying to elude its pursuers. The British sub was protected by US Navy P-8 Poseidon maritime patrol aircraft, an anti-submarine-warfare platform.

British and Russian navies have come into increasing contact in the waters around Europe, but this is believed to be the first time such an encounter has taken place in the lead-up to strikes. The British sub in question did not take part in those strikes, however.

In June 2017, when the UK's newest aircraft carrier, HMS Queen Elizabeth, went through sea trials, a Russian sub was spying on it. A Russian sub also shadowed US-UK naval drills off the coast of Scotland in August.

In mid-2017, US and NATO ships closely tracked the Krasnodar, one of Russia's newest Improved Kilo-class subs, as it traveled around Europe to its home port with Russia's Black Sea fleet.

Improved Kilo-class subs are a mainstay in Russia's undersea fleet, the product of Moscow's renewed focus on submarine warfare in the years after the Cold War. Improved Kilo subs are especially quiet and skilled at operating near the seafloor in shallow waters.

Near the end of its journey, the Krasnodar launched cruise-missile strikes at targets in Syria, and in the days that followed US ships in the Mediterranean embarked on one of their first efforts to track a Russian sub under combat conditions since the Cold War.

Sailors and airmen aboard the USS George H. W. Bush, an aircraft carrier that had sailed into the Mediterranean a few weeks before, were tasked with hunting the sub and learning all they could about how it operated, including tactics and techniques. For many of them, it was their first real-world encounter with the complicated and dangerous art of anti-submarine warfare.

"It is an indication of the changing dynamic in the world that a skill set, maybe we didn’t spend a lot of time on in the last 15 years, is coming back," Capt. Jim McCall, commander of the air wing on the USS Bush, told The Wall Street Journal at the time.

SEE ALSO: China's growing submarine force is 'armed to the teeth' — and the rest of the Pacific is racing to keep up

Join the conversation about this story »

NOW WATCH: Everything you've ever wanted to know about life on a US Navy submarine

• Iran-backed militias that have intense anti-American sentiments may become more emboldened and attack US forces operating in Syria or Iraq.
• Iran is the benefactor of a number of militias in the region, some of which have openly stated that they will target US forces in the future.
• The US has around 2,000 soldiers in Syria that could fend off attacks if they have air support, but if they are attacked by thousands of Iranian proxy militias or if their supply lines are cut off, it could be hard to rescue them.

With the Islamic State in retreat and anti-regime rebels losing ground, Iranian-backed armed groups in Syria are turning the focus of their militancy to U.S. troops on the ground.

Western military officials and independent analysts have long said it was only a matter of time before U.S. forces on the ground in Syria were targeted by militias.

Now, this weekend’s U.S.-led airstrikes on alleged chemical weapons installations could hasten such attacks.

The militias have “always had this anti-American tone, but when you have one threat after another, you see they’re trying to send a specific message,” says Phillip Smyth, a scholar at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy who has been tracking Iranian-backed militias in Syria.

This month, the Baqir Brigade, one of a number of Iranian-backed militias operating in Syria, announced on its Facebook page that it would begin attacks on U.S. military personnel.

“We in the Baqir Brigade leadership announce the good news of the launch of military and jihadi operations against the U.S. occupier and all those affiliated with it in Syria,” the militia said in an April 6 statement that was carried by multiple media outlets the following day. (Facebook appears to have shut down the page shortly afterward.)

In a report published last week, Smyth chronicled increasing militia hostility toward U.S. forces in northern Syria that goes beyond the normal invective.

He noted that the Baqir Brigade declaration went beyond a statement to a call for jihad, or religiously sanctioned holy war. “The group itself cannot declare jihad — it has to come from their Iranian higher-ups,” he says.

The Baqir Brigade declaration was a “huge thing,” says Nawar Oliver, a military analyst at the Omran Center for Strategic Studies, a think tank in Istanbul.

“The announcement is not a joke. Eventually we might see action.”

The limited airstrikes overnight Friday damaged sites where, Western officials said, chemical weapons were allegedly produced or distributed and then used against civilians in rebel territories, including in the city of Douma on April 7.

But the airstrikes also appear to have galvanized Syrian President Bashar al-Assad’s supporters, who flooded streets in pro-regime demonstrations.

“What happened on Saturday morning will complicate the political solution,” Lebanese Hezbollah leader Hassan Nasrallah said in a speech Sunday. “It will inflame international relations … and it will delay Geneva talks if not destroy them.”

Armed groups in Syria with direct or suspected connections to Tehran have become increasingly vocal about their intention to target U.S. forces in Syria, mostly grouped in the country’s north and northeast. 

Newly emboldened pro-Iranian militias across the region have already shifted their focus from battling the Islamic State toward Washington and its allies.

“After the fight against the Islamic State, now what they say is, ‘We’re No. 1 against America, and everything else is No. 2,’” says Renad Mansour, an Iraqi-based researcher for Chatham House who has spoken with leaders and members of pro-Iranian militias.

“In rhetorical terms, they’re making it clear Americans are their enemies. If a conflict heats up between the U.S. and Iran, these guys are the agents on the ground.”

Just hours after the U.S. attack on alleged Syrian chemical sites, hundreds of Iranian-backed militia fighters reportedly surrounded a U.S. air base to the west of Baghdad, defying the orders of commanders in the city, according to the Lebanese newspaper Ad-Diyar.

U.S. military officials declined to confirm or deny the incident but cautioned that all Iraqi forces, including militias, must obey the central government.

“Coalition forces maintain the right to defend themselves and our Iraqi partners against any threat,” U.S. Army Col. Ryan Dillon said in response to an emailed question about the report.

After the U.S. invasion of Iraq in 2003, Shiite-led militias organized by Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps targeted American forces, using armor-piercing roadside bombs to attack U.S. patrols and firing mortars and missiles into bases.

In Syria, U.S. forces confined to far-flung bases with threadbare desert supply lines may be in a particularly vulnerable position.

The U.S. military presence in northern Syria numbers around 2,000 Army, Marine, and special operations forces, alongside smaller numbers of U.K. and French personnel.

In addition, at least 5,500 Defense Department contractors, half of them U.S. citizens, are spread throughout Syria and Iraq, according to a report issued by U.S. Central Command this month.

An American and a British soldier were reportedly killed in Syria on March 30, when a roadside bomb struck their vehicle.

“The more the conflict winds down and the insurgency against the Assad regime fades away, the more incentivized Iran and its proxies become to provoke a military confrontation with the US,” says Ranj Alaaldin, a scholar the Brookings Doha Center.

“The U.S. can overwhelm them and inflict heavy damages from the air, but the 2,000 U.S. troops stationed in the east are no match for the tens of thousands of proxies Iran has at its disposal.”

The most vociferously anti-American militias tend to be focused on the eastern provinces, where they have been recruiting among pro-Assad Sunni tribes, as well as from Syria’s tiny Shiite minority.

Syrian forces under the Assad regime’s direct command appear careful to avoid conflicts with the Americans, but Iranian-backed militias have repeatedly tangled with U.S. forces in the country.

One pro-regime militia, Popular Resistance in the Eastern Region, distributed a video this month claiming to show a mortar attack on a U.S. base in the Syrian town of Ain Issa, north of Raqqa. The group has announced that it will attack both U.S. forces and allied Kurdish militias working with them.

In recent days, Iran’s leadership has also signaled that it’s time to hasten America’s departure from Syria.

Just hours before the United States launched its airstrikes, Ali Akbar Velayati, Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei’s advisor on international affairs, appeared on state television during a visit to Syria.

“The Americans are too weak to remain in the east of the Euphrates,” he said.

After the Syrian regime’s victory over rebels in Eastern Ghouta, where the most recent alleged chemical attack took place, Velayati said the Americans will ultimately be forced to leave.

“There is no possibility for them to stay. That is why they consider air attacks,” Velayati said. “But I must say that the trajectory of war is determined on the ground, not in the skies.”

SEE ALSO: Pentagon videos show how the US military brought almost 100 missiles down on Syria

Join the conversation about this story »

NOW WATCH: How to stop your Facebook friends from giving away your data

• Syrian air defenses are responding to a new series of strikes, according to multiple news reports published on Monday night.
• Syrian state news organizations claimed that the missiles, which targeted Shayrat air base, were shot down by air defenses but did not identify who fired them, Reuters reported.
• Syrian state media is widely believed to exaggerate their claims of shooting down incoming missiles.
• The same air base was targeted by US missiles in 2017, after it was suspected of being involved in a previous chemical attack that killed at least 70 people in the rebel-held town of Khan Sheikhoun.
• A US Central Command official told Business Insider that the command was aware of the reports.
• Pentagon spokesman Eric Pahond said there was "no US military activity in that area at this time," according to The Jerusalem Post.
• An Israeli military spokeman said he would not comment on the incident.

SEE ALSO: 'We are being threatened': Russia seethes over US-led military strikes in Syria

Join the conversation about this story »

NOW WATCH: Why Russia is so involved in the Syrian Civil War

• Syrian anti-aircraft defenses shot down missiles fired at airbases Syria's state television and pro-Iranian Hezbollah media said.
• State television showed pictures of a missile that was shot in the air above the air base only days after a U.S., British and French attack on Syrian targets in retaliation for a suspected chemical attack on the city of Douma on the outskirts of Damascus.
• A Pentagon spokesman said there was no U.S. military activity in that area at this time.
• Asked about the missile attack, an Israeli military spokesman said: "We don't comment on such reports."

AMMAN (Reuters) - Syrian anti-aircraft defenses shot down missiles fired at the Syrian air base of Shayrat in Homs province late on Monday and another base northeast of the capital, Damascus, Syria's state television and pro-Iranian Hezbollah media said.

State television showed pictures of a missile that was shot in the air above the air base only days after a U.S., British and French attack on Syrian targets in retaliation for a suspected chemical attack on the city of Douma on the outskirts of Damascus.

State television did not mention three missiles that were fired at Dumair military airport, northeast of Damascus, that pro-Iranian Hezbollah's media service reported were intercepted by Syrian air defenses.

Opposition sources say Dumair airport is a major air base used in a large-scale military campaign waged by the Syrian army with Russian firepower that regained eastern Ghouta, a rebel enclave on the outskirts of Damascus.

A Pentagon spokesman said there was no U.S. military activity in that area at this time.

Asked about the missile attack, an Israeli military spokesman said: "We don't comment on such reports."

Shayrat air base was targeted last year in a U.S. cruise missile attack in response to a chemical attack that killed at least 70 people, including children, on the rebel-held town of Khan Sheikhoun.

Israel has struck Syrian army locations many times in the course of the conflict, hitting convoys and bases of Iranian-backed militias that fight alongside Syrian President Bashar al- Assad's forces.

Israel has long said Iran was expanding its influence in a belt of territory that stretches from the Iraqi border to the Lebanese border, where Israel says Iran supplies Hezbollah with arms.

Hezbollah and other Iranian-backed militias have a large military presence in Syria and are well entrenched in central and eastern areas near the Iraqi border.

Deputy Hezbollah leader Sheikh Naim Qassem told pro-Syrian government television channel al Maydeen he expected a reaction to the death of at least seven Iranian military personnel during a missile strike earlier this month on the T-4 airfield near Homs, which Iran blamed on Israel

“The deliberate Israeli slaying of Iranians in the T4 base will have a response but we don’t know its nature or its details,” Qassem said in the television interview.

The heavily armed and Tehran-backed Shi’ite movement has been a vital military ally of President Bashar al-Assad in the seven-year-old Syrian war.

Hezbollah, which last fought a major war with Israel in 2006, has however said it would not open a new front against its arch-foe from Lebanon.

Qassem said the powerful militia did not fight in all the main battles in Syria but was present in any area that was needed. He did not elaborate.

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said after the U.S., British, and French strikes in Syria his country will continue "to move against Iran in Syria."

SEE ALSO: Trump's Syria strikes might have been illegal — and it shows Congress has limited power to stop him from going to war

Join the conversation about this story »

NOW WATCH: How to stop your Facebook friends from giving away your data