Following a brutal defeat in the House of Commons, David Cameron told his fellow Members of Parliament that he would not use Royal Perogative to force a military campaign in Syria.

Cameron, described by the New Statesman as "visibly chastened," told the Commons:

"I strongly believe in the need for a tough response to the use of chemical weapons, but I also believe in respecting the will of this House of Commons. It is very clear tonight that while the House has not passed a motion, it is clear to me that the British parliament, reflecting the views of the British people, does not want to see British military action.

"I get that, at the government will act accordingly."

Watch that moment below:

Join the conversation about this story »

Despite the British government's stunning rejection of intervention in Syria, President Obama is prepared to move forward with a military strike against the Assad regime, The New York Times reports.

From the Times:

Although the officials cautioned that Mr. Obama had not made a final decision, all indications suggest that the strike could occur as soon as United Nations inspectors, who are investigating the Aug. 21 attack that killed hundreds of Syrians, leave the country. They are scheduled to depart Damascus, the capital, on Saturday.

Ahead of the British House of Commons vote, the Obama administration had already signaled they would go without U.K. support in Syria if necessary.

"Britain is important diplomatically, but not required, and not required militarily. The White House could move ahead without the British," Barry Pavel, a former White House defense official, told The Telegraph.

From The Guardian:

A spokeswoman for Obama's national security council said the US would consider its options in the light of the vote. "The US will continue to consult with the UK government – one of our closest allies and friends. As we've said, President Obama's decision-making will be guided by what is in the best interests of the United States.

"He believes that there are core interests at stake for the United States and that countries who violate international norms regarding chemical weapons need to be held accountable."

The White House will make the case for limited military action to Congressional leaders on Thursday evening, according to The Times.

Still, if a strike happens, the U.S. won't be completely alone. The French government announced Thursday their preparations for a possible Syrian operation, although it stopped short of announcing total commitment to intervention.

Senior U.S. officials have maintained any action would be limited in scope — designed to send a message to Assad, but avoid continued military involvement. On Aug. 26, Obama ordered the completion of a report to justify a strike.

The Washington Post lays out the three conditions necessary for such strikes to occur:

...completion of an intelligence report assessing Syrian government culpability in last week’s alleged chemical attack; ongoing consultation with allies and Congress; and determination of a justification under international law.

The completed intelligence report will be made public Friday, according to a senior administration official speaking to CBS' Major Garrett.

Tensions between the West and the Assad regime have heated up over the past week, after an alleged chemical weapons attack was perpetrated on Aug. 21. The Syrian government has repeatedly denied being behind the attack, although senior U.S. officials say they have "no doubt" Assad was responsible.

SEE ALSO: COLIN POWELL: Syria Is An 'Internal Struggle' That Is Beyond US Capabilities

Join the conversation about this story »

Though the boom in U.S. oil production has made headlines as of late, one of the biggest economic stories in North America over the past decade has been the rapid growth of oil production in Canada. It’s no overstatement to say that the foundation for North American energy independence was laid as extracting Alberta’s oil sands became increasingly economically viable. Currently, more than 3.5 million barrels are produced daily in Canada, with total energy production accounting for around 6 percent of total GDP.

Despite the recent surge in oil prices, complacency just isn’t an option for producers. Meager economic growth and a potential production glut don’t bode particularly well for oil prices in the medium-term; geopolitical concerns won’t linger in perpetuity.

In Canada, heavy oil producers are particularly vexed. As the nation’s Minister of Natural Resources, Joe Oliver, explained, Canada has but “one customer — 99 percent of our crude and 100 percent of our natural gas exports go to the U.S. — a customer that will be needing our commodities less in the future.”

David Bouckhout, senior commodity strategist for TD Securities in Calgary, has emerged as one of the most astute analysts of energy commodity markets. Back in 2010-2011, his advice to clients that the spread between Brent and WTI crude oil grades would widen – and remain so for a prolonged period – was notably prescient.

BiC was lucky enough to chat with David earlier this week to discuss the hottest issue in markets – the current forces driving oil prices – as well as what the future has in store for Canadian and U.S. oil production.

David believes the present threat to oil production is “exaggerated,” and, as such, that oil is a tad overvalued. He fears not what the effect of U.S. involvement in the conflict would be, but rather, how oil production might be significantly impacted if the conflict spilled into Iraq.

The senior commodity strategist also offers a fresh take on the spread between Brent and WTI crude oil – an update on his clairvoyant call from a few years back. He notes that a spread between $4 to $7/bbl is consistent with TD’s longer-term outlook, and does not believe that WTI will return to parity in the near future since Brent remains more sensitive to geopolitical risk.

With regards to Keystone XL, David thinks it will be approved – eventually. The pipeline seems to satisfy the net greenhouse gas emission criterion established by President Obama in his speech back in June.

A full transcript of the interview is provided below.

BiC: Let's start with the obvious question. Conflict in Syria, a deteriorating situation in Egypt and disruptions in Libya have oil markets on edge currently. How real is the threat posed by these geopolitical factors to production levels?

DB: The direct threat to production posed by the problems in Syria and Egypt is probably exaggerated. It's one of the reasons why we think that oil price levels are fundamentally too high currently. However, there is a real risk that the situation in either nation could lead to further regional instability. In particular a spillover of the conflict in Syria to Iraq could disrupt production there, which would have a significant impact on supply dynamics. On the other hand, Libya is already facing supply disruptions, which is price supportive and could keep the market elevated regardless of the developments in either Egypt or Syria with global oil fundamentals somewhat tighter now than they have been.

BiC: You are obviously well known for your market view on the spread between Brent and WTI price levels in recent years. Recently the two grades went to parity only to diverge again, what is your view of the price spread going forward in the near-term?

DB: The move back out to the $4 to $7/bbl level is consistent with our longer-term view. We feel that in that range the spread covers the cost of transportation and other factors such as Brent’s higher sensitivity to geopolitical risks and the improving infrastructure for WTI to access US Gulf Coast refiners.

BiC: What are your thoughts on the Keystone XL pipeline project?

DB: We think that the Keystone pipeline will eventually be approved. We think that the pipeline satisfies the net emission argument for the US and also reduces American reliance on foreign oil from more geopolitically unstable sources. It also provides heavy oil to refiners demanding heavy oil more so than light oil, which is what the bulk of the growth in US supply is comprised of. We also can’t forget that traditional sources of US heavy oil imports are facing steep decline and more demand from alternative markets like China. Canada doesn’t have that same issue given that it doesn’t have the infrastructure in place to access alternative markets at this point.

BiC: Given increasing oil and gas production in the US, should Canadian producers be looking to diversify the markets they sell to?

DB: We feel that seeking alternative markets for Canada’s energy resources is very important. While we expect that the US will remain the largest buyer of Canadian supply for the foreseeable future, export capacity is going to remain an issue as Canadian production grows. Even if the Keystone XL pipeline goes through, more capacity will be needed down the road given the expected Canadian production growth. US demand is also starting to trend lower, which means less Canadian oil imports may be needed, and bring up the alternative market debate again.

Join the conversation about this story »

Oil prices dropped suddenly between 2pm ET and 3pm ET on Thursday.  At the time, one of Business Insider's trader contacts warned that someone in the market was betting that the U.K. would vote against military action against Syria.

It appears our source was right.

At around 5:32 pm ET, Britain's House of Commons voted down the motion for military action.

Here's what oil prices have been doing since then via FinViz.

SEE ALSO: 15 Charts That Should Terrify Saudi Arabia

Join the conversation about this story »

U.S. lawmakers from both parties expressed skepticism regarding a possible military strike on Syria following a 90-minute briefing held Thursday evening, with many feeling President Obama needs to make a better case for action, NBC News reports.

The focus of the unclassified briefing — which included Secretary of State John Kerry, Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel, and other intelligence and military officials — was to prove Syrian President Bashar al-Assad was guilty of using chemical weapons on Aug. 21. Senior administration officials have said they have "no doubt" the Syrian government was responsible for the alleged attack, reportedly resulting in about 3,600 injured and hundreds dead. 

"They weren’t specific in terms of ‘Person A named so-and-so did this and said that,'" Rep. Eliot Engel (D-N.Y.), ranking member of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, told NBC. "They just said that they had intercepted communications talking about doing this.”

The timing of the briefing came roughly 30 minutes after the British parliament had voted against military intervention in Syria — delivering an embarrassing blow to the legitimacy of U.K. Prime Minister David Cameron.

Despite the vote, the administration indicated it was prepared to move forward without the U.K., with decisions "guided by what is in the best interests of the United States," according to a White House spokesperson.

Many top Democrats stood by Obama and offered support for military action after the briefing, although a significant number opted to join Republicans in calling for a vote before any action. In addition to wanting a vote, Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) has asked that 14 specific questions be answered before supporting any strike.

“It’s a very tough situation with no good options," Rep. Howard "Buck" McKeon (R-Calif.), chairman of the House Armed Services Committee, told NBC. “It’s up to the president to sell this to the American people.”

The U.S. has maintained that any action would be limited in scope — designed to send a message to Assad, but intended to avoid continued military action (such as boots on the ground). A limited strike hinges on three conditions, according to The Washington Post:

...completion of an intelligence report assessing Syrian government culpability in last week’s alleged chemical attack; ongoing consultation with allies and Congress; and determination of a justification under international law.

Besides trying to sway congressional leaders, Obama will likely try to present a stronger case to the American people soon, with the release of a completed intelligence report to be made public Friday, reports CBS' Major Garrett.

"He believes that there are core interests at stake for the United States and that countries who violate international norms regarding chemical weapons need to be held accountable," said White House spokesman Caitlin Hayden in an email.

Join the conversation about this story »

'Cure worse than the disease': Experts say bombing chemical weapon sites may cause problems

WASHINGTON (AP) — You simply can't safely bomb a chemical weapon storehouse into oblivion, experts say. That's why they say the United States is probably targeting something other than Syria's nerve agents.

But now there is concern that bombing other sites could accidentally release dangerous chemical weapons that the U.S. military didn't know were there because they've lost track of some of the suspected nerve agents.

Bombing stockpiles of chemical weapons — purposely or accidentally — would likely kill nearby civilians in an accidental nerve agent release, create a long-lasting environmental catastrophe or both, five experts told The Associated Press. That's because under ideal conditions — and conditions wouldn't be ideal in Syria — explosives would leave at least 20 to 30 percent of the poison in lethal form.

"If you drop a conventional munition on a storage facility containing unknown chemical agents — and we don't know exactly what is where in the Syrian arsenal — some of those agents will be neutralized and some will be spread," said Daryl Kimball, executive director of the Arms Control Association, a nonprofit that focuses on all types of weaponry. "You are not going to destroy all of them."

"It's a classic case of the cure being worse than the disease," Kimball said. He said some of the suspected storage sites are in or near major Syrian cities like Damascus, Homs and Hama. Those cities have a combined population of well over 2 million people.

When asked if there is any way to ensure complete destruction of the nerve agents without going in with soldiers, seizing the chemicals and burning them in a special processing plant, Ralf Trapp, a French chemical weapons consultant and longtime expert in the field, said simply: "Not really."

Trapp said to incinerate the chemicals properly, temperatures have to get as hot as 2,100 degrees Fahrenheit. Experts also say weather factors — especially wind and heat — even time of day, what chemicals are stored, how much of it is around and how strong the building is all are factors in what kind of inadvertent damage could come from a bombing.

There is one precedent for bombing a chemical weapons storehouse. In 1991, during the first Persian Gulf War, the U.S. bombed Bunker 13 in Al Muthanna, Iraq. Officials figured it contained 2,500 artillery rockets filled with sarin, the same nerve gas suspected in Syria. More than two decades later the site is so contaminated no one goes near it even now.

That bunker is a special problem for inspectors because "an entry into the bunker would expose personnel to explosive, chemical and physical hazards," says a 2012 report by the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons, which implements the international chemical weapons convention.

Pentagon planners are also worried about accidentally triggering a nerve agent attack by hitting weapons stores that have been moved by the government to new locations.

Over the past six months, with shifting front lines and sketchy satellite and human intelligence coming out of Syria, the U.S. intelligence community has lost track of who controls some of the government's chemical weapons supplies, according to one senior U.S. intelligence official and three other U.S. officials briefed on the information presented by the White House as reason to strike Syria's military complex. They spoke on condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to discuss the briefings publicly.

That's a very real risk, said Susannah Sirkin, international policy director for the Physicians for Human Rights, which has been monitoring weapons of mass destruction for more than two decades.

"You would risk dispersing agents into the environment," she said. "Given that sarin is not seen or smelled, that's terror."

Another issue is that by bombing storage sites that are near contested areas in the civil war, the chemical weapons can fall into others' hands, including extremist rebels or pro-Assad militia, Kimball said.

"What we're looking at in Syria is an unprecedented situation," Kimball said.

___

AP Intelligence Writer Kimberly Dozier contributed to this report.

___

Follow Seth Borenstein on Twitter at http://twitter.com/borenbears

___

Online:

Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons: http://www.opcw.org/

Join the conversation about this story »

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The Obama administration on Thursday gave American lawmakers what it called fresh evidence that Syria's government was behind a chemical weapons attack, but faced strong resistance to military action from both U.S. political parties and a stinging rejection from Britain, a key ally.

During a conference call at the end of a difficult day for the White House, U.S. officials told members of Congress there was "no doubt" that chemical weapons were used in Syria last week. Obama aides cited intercepted communications of Syrian officials and evidence of movements by Syria's military around Damascus before the attack that killed more than 300 people, said U.S. Representative Eliot Engel, the top Democrat on the House Foreign Affairs Committee.

The administration's 90-minute briefing on Syria for senior members of Congress was conducted by U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry, Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel, National Security Adviser Susan Rice and other high-ranking U.S. officials.

Several lawmakers in both parties said they were impressed by the briefing and that it made a convincing case for military action. But many were not persuaded, including several key lawmakers in both parties.

Among them: Carl Levin of Michigan, chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee. Levin, normally a strong supporter of fellow Democrat Obama, appeared to suggest after Thursday's briefing that the White House should tap the brakes on any timetable for military action at least until United Nations inspectors complete their examination of the attack area.

Levin also said that White House should secure international support for intervening in Syria - a condition that seemed increasingly distant after Britain's House of Commons rejected military action in a symbolic vote on Thursday.

Meanwhile, other U.S. lawmakers brought up a range of complications for Obama. They included questions of whether the "limited" military action Obama has suggested would really discourage Syrian President Bashar al-Assad from again using chemical weapons on civilians, and even whether the Pentagon could afford to attack Syria after the $85 billion in automatic spending cuts that Congress imposed on the federal government earlier this year.

The increasing doubts about Obama's call for action against Syria appeared to increase the likelihood that the United States would have to act alone if it wants to launch a missile strike to punish Assad's government for violating international law by using chemical weapons.

After Parliament's vote against military action in Syria, British Defense Secretary Philip Hammond said Britain would not take part in any strike but added: "I don't expect that the lack of British participation will stop any action."

Obama has left little doubt in recent days that the choice was not whether, but when, to punish Assad's government for last week's chemical weapons attack against Syrian rebels outside Damascus. It was one of the most gruesome assaults in a 2 1/2-year civil war that the United Nations estimates has killed more than 100,000 people.

Obama administration officials said Thursday that the president was willing to launch a limited strike against Syria even without specific promises of support from allies because U.S. national security interests were at stake.

Caitlin Hayden, spokeswoman for the White House National Security Council, said after the British Parliament vote that Obama's decision-making on Syria would be guided by "the best interests of the United States."

"The U.S. will continue to consult with the UK government - one of our closest allies and friends," she said in a statement. She added that Obama believes "there are core interests at stake for the United States and that countries who violate international norms regarding chemical weapons need to be held accountable."

A 'PAPER TIGER'

Some Republican lawmakers and even some of Obama's fellow Democrats have complained that the White House has not kept them sufficiently informed on Syria.

After the briefing, some said the administration still had work to do to convince the public that the United States should take action in Syria.

Several said that Obama created a problem for himself and the United States by claiming that Assad would cross a "red line" and spur a strong U.S. response if Syria used chemical weapons.

"The president is going to have to make his case to the American people before he takes any action. The problem that he finds himself in and has placed us in is that if he does not take action now after making these statements, then we become a paper tiger to the rest of the world," said Republican Representative Howard "Buck" McKeon of California, chairman of the House Armed Services Committee.

Senator James Inhofe, a Republican from Oklahoma, said late Thursday that the administration's briefing had not been convincing.

"Tonight the administration informed us that they have a ‘broad range of options' for Syria but failed to lay out a single option," Inhofe said. "They also did not provide a timeline, a strategy for Syria and the Middle East, or a plan for the funds to execute such an option."

The timeline for possible U.S. action also has been complicated by the continued presence in Syria of U.N. weapons inspectors who are there to verify that chemical weapons were used. The United Nations said its inspectors would leave the area on Saturday and issue a report on their findings afterward.

Levin, the Democratic senator from Michigan, said efforts to increase pressure on Assad should be conducted "while U.N. inspectors complete their work and while we seek international support for limited, targeted strikes in response to the Assad regime's large-scale use of chemical weapons against the Syrian people."

U.S. ACTION 'JUSTIFIED, WARRANTED'

Some of Obama's fellow Democrats offered support for his call for a U.S. operation in Syria.

"Tonight's briefing reaffirmed for me that a decisive and consequential U.S. response is justified and warranted to protect Syrians, as well as to send a global message that chemical weapons attacks in violation of international law will not stand," Senate Foreign Relations Committee Chairman Robert Menendez, a New Jersey Democrat, said in a statement.

The briefing for senior lawmakers initially was meant to be classified, but did not contain any top-secret information after many members of Congress were unable to get to secure telephone lines.

It was called to address concerns about Obama's plans that had been expressed by increasingly vocal Republicans and several Democrats in Congress.

Letters circulating among members of Congress in both parties have called for more consultation from the White House on Syria. One, signed by 54 Democrats in the Republican-led House of Representatives, urged Obama to seek congressional approval before pulling the trigger on any U.S. military action.

"While the ongoing human rights violations and continued loss of life are horrific, they should not draw us into an unwise war," wrote the House Democrats, none of whom are members of the senior leadership.

White House spokesman Josh Earnest said any military operation would be "very discrete and limited" and not open-ended, and said the United States would not get caught up in another war like the one in Iraq.

He noted that the British foreign secretary had made clear the United States had the right and ability to make its own foreign policy decisions.

(Additional reporting by Tabassum Zakaria, Steve Holland, David Alexander and Jeff Mason in Washington, and Alex Dobuzinskis in California; Writing by John Whitesides; Editing by David Lindsey and Lisa Shumaker)

Join the conversation about this story »

All signs indicate that President Barack Obama is prepared for a limited strike on Syria despite a lack of broad support from allies and Congress.

Yesterday, the U.K.'s House of Commons rejected Prime Minister David Cameron's motion for military action, while the U.S. Congress is demanding a say and the UN Security Council has failed to agree on military action.

The administration's resolve arises from the assessment that the regime of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad killed hundreds of his own people in a chemical weapons attack on August 21, creating a need to uphold the international norm against using poison gas and enforce Obama's blurred“red line.”

And there is a sense of urgency given that America's plan is losing support while Assad is moving missiles and evacuating vulnerable military targets in the capital of Damascus.

The Wall Street Journal reports:

White House officials on Thursday signaled a desire to act quickly in Syria, on the U.S.'s own timetable and unilaterally, if necessary.

They cited a concern that waiting longer would inflame debates in the U.S. and Europe, while providing Syria more of an opportunity to cover its tracks and giving Syria's allies time to whip up international opposition to U.S. strikes.

That concern is justified since the Britain's House of Commons rejected Prime Minister David Cameron's motion for military action in Syria, driving a wedge of sorts between America and its closest ally. Then Germany ruled out participating in a strike on Syria. (France reaffirmed its support of a strike.)

And according to a Russian adviser (via the BBC), the Kremlin welcomed the rejection of Cameron and is "actively working to avoid any scenario involving use of force in Syria."Iran and its Lebanese proxy Hezbollah have both threatened retaliation to any Western strike.

Thus, the Obama administration feels that America must"send a shot across the bow" of Assad to uphold the international norm against chemical weapons, and it doesn't need anyone's help to do that.

"What's being contemplated is of such a limited and narrow nature that it's not ... imperative for bringing in different capabilities from different countries," a senior administration official told WSJ.

In other words, America has enough assets in the area to accomplish its modest military objectives.

The White House's apparent commitment to a limited strike soon is based on "multiple pieces of evidence of regime involvement" when hundreds were killed and thousandssuffered"neurotoxic symptoms" near Damascus last week.

A senior administration official told CBS News late Thursday that on Friday the administration will release a declassified version of an intelligence report that contains "very convincing" evidence that the Syrian government used chemical weapons its own people.

The UN chemical weapons inspection team will reportedly wrap up its investigation and leave the capital on Saturday.

SEE ALSO: IAN BREMMER: The US Has To Attack Syria

Join the conversation about this story »

The 11-year-old son of Syrian president Bashar al-Assad is suspected of posting a diatribe on Facebook that calls American soldiers "cowards with new technology" and dared the U.S. to attack, Liam Stack of The New York Times reports.

Stack writes that if the post is a hoax, "it is either a highly elaborate one involving dozens of fake accounts purporting to belong to the children of other regime insiders, or a forgery so impressive that some of those children themselves — including the boy’s cousins — have been fooled."

Stack has pictures of the "likes" and comments by several people who appear to be the children and grandchildren of other senior members of Mr. Assad’s government —  including three children of a former deputy defense minister, Assef Shawkat, who was killed in Jule 2012 — before being deleted.

From  The Times:

The accounts said to belong to the children of Mr. Shawkat — one of his sons, Bassel, and two of his daughters, Anisseh and Boushra — appeared to be authentic, according to a Syrian journalist from Damascus who has extensive knowledge of the country’s ruling elite and spoke on condition of anonymity, citing safety concerns. Mr. Shawkat was married to the sister of Bashar al-Assad, making these three children cousins of Mr. Assad’s son Hafez, who is believed to be the author of the Facebook post.

The Obama administration appears committed to a limited military strike on Syria in response to perceived chemical weapons use on Aug. 21.

"I just want them to attack sooo much, because I want them to make this huge mistake of beginning something that they don’t know the end of it,” the Facebook post says. "... they don’t know our land like we do, no one does, victory is ours in the end no matter how much time it takes.”

Stack notes that no matter the post's origin,  it "appears to illustrate the mindset of Mr. Assad’s core supporters ... [and] may offer a glimpse into the way the country’s leaders — or, at the very least, Mr. Assad’s supporters — speak to one another and to their families as the specter of foreign military intervention looms."

Check our Stack's full analysis at the Times >

SEE ALSO: Why Obama Is Still Committed To Attacking Syria Despite Waning Support

Join the conversation about this story »

David Cameron suffered a huge upset last night, after Britain's House of Commons rejected his motion for military action in Syria.

Cameron appeared shocked by the outcome, as did many observers. He had good reason to be — it is extremely rare for the U.K. government to be defeated on such a matter. The last time this happened was 1782 when MPs refused to go on fighting Americans seeking to end colonial rule, effectively allowing the U.S. to become independent.

The big worry for Cameron is that the vote reflects a lack of confidence in his government (though it isn't technically a vote of no confidence). The British press certainly seems to think it was bad:

Cameron is facing reelection in 2015, so this is a severe stumble.

Worse still, it's something he could have easily avoided. Cameron was under no obligation to hold a vote on the subject — he could have used Royal Perogative to go to war without consulting parliament. He had recalled the House of Commons from their summer vacation early for the vote, most likely as Tony Blair had done the same before the Iraq War.

There's another nasty historical precedent as well: After losing the 1782 vote, British Prime Minister Lord North resigned within a month.

Join the conversation about this story »

It's been a pretty quiet week in the financial markets. Many folks in finance began their Labor Day holiday on Monday.

But UBS's Art Cashin is still hard at work with the other floor traders at the New York Stock Exchange.

And the escalating conflict in Syria has been leading the conversation.

Here's what the sentiment is according to Cashin:

Syria Speculation– The James Bond chapter of floor brokers took advantage of the slow tape to talk about the topic of the day – intervention in Syria.

As to the speculation that an attack could be the tripwire to a sudden regional or, even, a semi-global war, there were more than a few skeptics.  Israel has invaded Syrian airspace three or four times this year, hitting specific targets.  None of these brought expanded conflict or even counterattack from Syria, Hezbollah or Iran.

There was lots of discussion about what chemical was in the chemical attacks.  Saddam's gassing of the Kurds had a 90% fatality rate.  The fatality rate in Syria seemed much lower.

How will the G20 meeting next Thursday and Friday impact timing and strategy?  Would we launch an attack with the President out of the country?  How comfortable would the President be in a nose to nose with Putin on the Russian's home turf?  Curiouser and curiouser.

Stocks are down modestly in the first hour of trading today.

Join the conversation about this story »

Last week, pictures and amateur videos trickled into the Western media depicting residents of a Syrian suburb twitching and struggling to breathe. Their pupils were constricted. They were confused.

And then there were the dead, who showed no external injuries.

Noah Shachtman with Foreign Policy wrote that upon seeing the images, weapons experts and U.S. intelligence officials had little doubt what weapon wreaked that havoc.

They thought it was Sarin.

Developed in Nazi Germany in 1938 by a team of German scientists seeking a tougher pesticide, Sarin works as an "off-switch" for the body's glands and muscles. Most victims die because they are no longer able to breathe, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, which calls Sarin "the most volatile of the nerve agents." It kills within seconds.

Even the Nazis, however, chose not to use deadly sarin gas or other chemical weapons during WWII.

In the decades that followed, sarin gas would be mass produced by the U.S. and the Soviets, but they too chose not to use it offensively — at least not in any confirmed instances.

In fact, Sarin has only been used a few times in history — which is why the reports of potential use in Syria are so alarming.

Departed Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein perpetrated the largest and first confirmed Sarin gas attack to date in 1988, killing an estimated 5,000 Kurds in a northern Iraqi village called Halabja. 

The gas came in bombs dropped by Iraqi warplanes. The attack followed several days of heavy artillery fire. Residents seeking refuge in their basements were hit hard by the gas, which is heavier than air and hugs the ground.  

Kurdish fighters had aligned themselves with the Iranians in the Iraq-Iran war.

Hussein also reportedly employed the gas on several occasions against Iranian military targets, tilting the tide of the war in his favor. This allegedly occurred with at least the tacit endorsement of the United States.

In 1995, Aum Shinrikyo, a Japanese cult, twice deployed Sarin killing 21 and injuring thousands.  

The first attack came late at night, in the Kaichi Heights area of Matsumoto, Japan. By morning, eight people were dead. Police reportedly received an anonymous tip: "Matsumoto was definitely an experiment of sorts."

Nine months later, Aum Shinrikyo again released Sarin, but this time in a far more confined space — the Tokyo subway system.

Bags of Sarin were placed and strategically punctured throughout the subway system. Twelve people were killed.

Famed Japanese writer Haruki Murakami profiled the moment of the subway attack from the perspective of one of the attackers in stunning fashion:

As the subway approached Shin-ochanomizu Station, he dropped the bags of sarin by his right foot, steeled his nerves, and poked one of them with the end of his umbrella. It was resilient and gave a "springy gush." He poked it again a few times—exactly how many times he doesn't remember. 

March 20, 1995 was the last time anyone was known to be killed with Sarin gas. Now, U.S., Israeli, British, and French officials have expressed a high degree of confidence that Bashar al Assad has deployed the gas on his own people, with an estimated death toll ranging from 322 to 1,729.

If confirmed, Assad's use of Sarin could be seen as a desperate attempt to retain power of a nation in ruin. Chemical weapons can have devastating psychological effects, and Assad has vowed to crush his opposition him, whom he calls "terrorists."

The war crime may have had the opposite effect, however, leading to foreign intervention that turns the tide of the war against Assad.

Confirming a sarin gas attack is not difficult. It would be in the soil, in the blood and mucus of the victims. But investigators need access to the site. It took the UN several days to get there, first due to resistance from the Assad regime and then because their vehicles came under attack from snipers.

Harder still is the task of tying the weapons directly to Bashar al Assad. And while western powers express confidence that Sarin was used in the Aug. 21 attack, reports state that linking them to Assad has been a more difficult endeavor. 

While President Obama said recently that a military strike against Syria could serve as a "shot across the bow" to Assad, others have advocated for a more tempered approach. A House of Commons vote that would have authorized British intervention was defeated yesterday, and British Prime Minister David Cameron said that the U.K. would wait for the findings of the UN weapons inspectors.

SEE ALSO: The Economist On Assad: 'Hit him hard'

Join the conversation about this story »

President Barack Obama seems committed to a limited strike on the regime of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad in response to a chemical weapons attack in the suburbs of the capital on August 21.

The other day we illustrated the key Middle East assets of the U.S. and its allies as well as the locations of Assad's airports and chemical weapons sites.

Michael D. Weiss details the significance of Assad's airports in a comprehensive post on how to weaken Assad: 

Russian and Iranian military and commercial planes arrive daily to offload weapons (some of them advanced air or sea defense systems), ammunition, and personnel. Iran is spending an estimated $500 million a month to keep its ally afloat. ...

So, it's as simple as this: if you take out the runways, Iranian and Russian planes cannot land, nor can Syrian planes take off.

Weiss notes there are two key landing places for the extensive support delivered by Russia and Iran: Damascus International Airport (DIA) — which lies about 12 miles east of the city center — and Mezze airbase, which is controlled by the notorious and elite Fourth Armored Division and located just southwest of the capital.

The map below shows the key military infrastructure in Damascus (along with other important government buildings). The DIA is probably out of range of U.S. cruise missiles, but a strike on the Fourth Armored Division would be significant.

The U.S. probably wouldn't target non-military buildings (e.g. Central Bank, Parliament), but they are on the map to show the conctration of key instituions at the base in the center of the city. 

Note that Israeli jets have targeted the DIA as well as the Syrian military's fortress on Mount Qasioun, which serves as the mountain headquarters of the Fourth Division, the command of the government’s elite Republican Guard, and the Jamraya military research facility.

And here's the view from Mount Qasioun into the city:

SEE ALSO: Why Obama Is Still Committed To Attacking Syria Despite Waning Support

Join the conversation about this story »

Below is the declassified U.S. intelligence assessment on the chemical weapons attack that took place in the suburbs of Damascus, Syria on August 21.

The administration considers it clear evidence that the regime of Bashar al-Assad carried out the attack with a nerve agent.

Here are some of the key findings, which are based on "human, signals, and geospatial intelligence as well as a significant body of open source reporting" (emphasis ours):

• A preliminary U.S. government assessment determined that 1,429 people were killed in the chemical weapons attack, including at least 426 children.
• The Syrian regime has the types of munitions that we assess were used to carry out the attack on August 21, and has the ability to strike simultaneously in multiple locations. We have seen no indication that the opposition has carried out a large-scale, coordinated rocket and artillery attack like the one that occurred on August 21.
• In the three days prior to the attack, we collected streams of human, signals and geospatial intelligence that reveal regime activities that we assess were associated with preparations for a chemical weapons attack.
• Our intelligence sources in the Damascus area did not detect any indications in the days prior to the attack that opposition affiliates were planning to use chemical weapons.
• Multiple streams of intelligence indicate that the regime executed a rocket and artillery attack against the Damascus suburbs in the early hours of August 21.
• Local social media reports of a chemical attack in the Damascus suburbs began at 2:30 a.m. local time on August 21. Within the next four hours there were thousands of social media reports on this attack from at least 12 different locations in the Damascus area. Multiple accounts described chemical-filled rockets impacting opposition-controlled areas.
• We intercepted communications involving a senior official intimately familiar with the offensive who confirmed that chemical weapons were used by the regime on August 21 and was concerned with the U.N.inspectors obtaining evidence.
• On the afternoon of August 21, we have intelligence that Syrian chemical weapons personnel were directed to cease operations. At the same time, the regime intensified the artillery barrage targeting many of the neighborhoods where chemical attacksoccurred.

And here's a map of the areas affected, which provides a bunch of significant context for the attack:

Here's the full document:

08.30.2013++USG+Assessment+on+Syria (1)

Join the conversation about this story »

The Obama administration released a map today to go along with its report on the Syrian government's use of chemical weapons on Aug. 21. 

The first thing to notice is how the attack targeted rebel-held areas east of the city center.

Richard Guthrie, a chemical weapons specialist formerly with the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute in Sweden, told The New Scientist that "the day of the attack was the one day that week when the wind blew from government-held central Damascus towards the rebel-held eastern suburbs."

The first report of a chemical weapons attack was posted by the Jawbar Revolutionary Coordination Committee at 2:35 a.m. At 4:27 a.m. the 'Ayn Tarma Coordinating Committee warned of a toxic cloud spreading from Jawbar to Kafr Batna to the southeast.

Secretary of State John Kerry said today that 1,429 people died as a result of the attack, including 426 children.

The map details specific areas that were affected by the chemical weapons attack:

SEE ALSO: Key Parts Of The Declassified US Intelligence Report On August 21 Chemical Weapons Attack In Syria

Join the conversation about this story »

Secretary of State John Kerry made the case that "thug" and "murderer" Bashar al-Assad must face retribution, as the White House released a report (see below) detailing its evidence on the Syrian government's use of chemical weapons last week.

"Its findings are as clear as they are compelling," Kerry said of the report, adding that the credibility of the U.S. was at stake in responding. "... The intelligence community has high confidence."

In his approximately 19-minute statement, Kerry said that at least 1,429 Syrians were killed in the chemical weapons attack, based on evidence gathered. The 1,429 included 426 children.

Kerry's statement came as President Barack Obama continues to move ahead with plans for limited strikes in Syria, despite a lack of broad support from allies and a lack of Congressional authorization. Kerry said, however, that doing nothing was "not an option," and that there would be consequences if nothing was done — particularly with other regimes who could be emboldened to use chemical weapons.

"The primary question is no longer what do we know," Kerry said. "It is what are we in the world going to do about it?"

On Thursday, Britain's House of Commons stunningly rejected Prime Minister David Cameron's motion for military action in Syria. France, however, is still prepared to go along with action.

Kerry also assured a war-weary nation that intervention in Syria would not mirror recent occupations in Iraq and Afghanistan, or even the lesser-scale intervention in Libya in 2011.

"American people are tired of war. Believe me, I am too. But fatigue does not absolve us of responsibility," Kerry said.

Below is the full report of the U.S. government's declassified assessment of the Syrian government's use of chemical weapons:

08.30.2013++USG+Assessment+on+Syria (1)

Join the conversation about this story »

President Barack Obama said in an afternoon statement Friday that he is considering a "limited, narrow act" of military response in Syria, and said that its government's chemical-weapons attack is a "challenge to the world," according to a White House pool report.

"We cannot accept a world where women and children and innocent civilians are gassed on a terrible scale," Obama said.

Obama said that he has not yet made a final decision on how to proceed. He said that his military had provided a range of options.

"We're not considering any open ended commitment. We're not considering any boots on the ground approach," Obama said, according to the pool report.

Obama made the brief statement during a meeting with three world leaders — President Toomas Hendrik Ilves of Estonia, Dalia Grybauskaitė of Lithuania, and President Andris Bērziņš of Latvia. Vice President Joe Biden also was at the meeting.

Obama's remarks came after Secretary of State John Kerry's blistering statement earlier this afternoon, during which he called Syrian President Bashar al-Assad a "thug" and "murderer" and said he must be held accountable for a chemical-weapons attack earlier this month.

The White House also released a declassified report detailing with "high confidence" the assessment that the Assad regime used chemical weapons against its people. According to the report, the chemical-weapons attack killed 1,429 people, including 426 children. 

"We intercepted communications involving a senior official intimately familiar with the offensive who confirmed that chemical weapons were used by the regime on August 21 and was concerned with the U.N.inspectors obtaining evidence," the report read.

Join the conversation about this story »

President Barack Obama's approval rating has matched its lowest ever recorded in a new NBC News poll.

And huge drops in his foreign policy approval combined with poor marks for handling the situation in Syria are to blame. 

Obama's overall approval rating stands at 44%. The only other time it has been that low in the NBC survey came at the end of 2011, after a bruising debt ceiling fight with Congress that ended in a downgrade of the nation's credit rating.

This time, the drop is largely due to foreign policy concerns. Only 41% approve of the way Obama is handling foreign policy, the lowest ever. Consider that just last December, 52% approved of the way he was handling foreign policy. 

The drop in satisfaction in foreign policy comes as Obama has ramped up talk for military action in Syria. According to the poll, Americans aren't very satisfied with the way he has approached U.S. involvement in that conflict, either. Only 35% approve, and 44% disapprove. 

The poll also showed the quagmire facing Obama as he decides how to proceed in Syria. Almost four in five Americans think that Obama should seek Congressional approval before moving forward with any strikes in Syria.

Overall, 50% think that the U.S. should not intervene in Syria, even in the wake of suspected chemical weapons attacks by the Assad regime last week. But a majority of Americans — 52%  — do support intervention if it is limited to launching cruise missiles from naval ships.

Both Obama and Secretary of State John Kerry made the case for intervention on Friday, as Obama said in a brief statement that the chemical-weapons attack is a "challenge to the world." His comments came after Kerry's blistering statement earlier this afternoon, during which he called Syrian President Bashar al-Assad a "thug" and "murderer" and said he must be held accountable for a chemical-weapons attack earlier this month.

The White House also released a declassified report detailing with "high confidence" the assessment that the Assad regime used chemical weapons against its people. According to the report, the chemical-weapons attack killed 1,429 people, including 426 children. 

"We cannot accept a world where women and children and innocent civilians are gassed on a terrible scale," Obama said Friday.

Join the conversation about this story »

There was something really weird about the Obama Administration's message on Syria today: It was singularly focused on making the case that Syria really did use chemical weapons, and that our intelligence is right this time, unlike in Iraq.

I believe the Administration on this intel. But they are failing to explain why it follows that we should launch a military strike on Syria. What do they think our intervention will do to reduce human suffering in Syria or anywhere else?

Is the idea that our “limited and tailored” intervention will directly interfere with Assad’s chemical weapons capability? Do we hope that it will serve like a spanking, dissuading him from using chemical weapons again? Is the hope that a strike will discourage other wayward dictators from abusing their people, lest they get bombed too?

So far, all we're getting are variants on "something must be done."

I'm not an expert on foreign policy. My usual M.O. is to say as little about foreign policy as possible. But over the last 20 years, foreign policy experts' record on "should we attack?" questions has been less than stellar. So, I don't think it's out of turn for me to ask for more clarity on our strategic goals.

I'm not automatically opposed to the use of force. In recent years, I can see a handful of limited military actions that seem to have improved situations in the impacted countries, particularly our campaigns in Kosovo and Libya. But in both of those cases, the objective was regime change. The objective in Syria is much less obvious.

The situation in Syria is obviously a humanitarian tragedy. But there are lots of terrible problems the U.S. government can't fix. It's not enough for the administration to explain that the Syrians need help; it needs to explain why a military strike would be helpful.

Join the conversation about this story »

VLADIVOSTOK, Russia (Reuters) - Russia's President Vladimir Putin said on Saturday it would be "utter nonsense" for the Syrian government to use chemical weapons when it was winning its war with rebels, and urged U.S. President Barack Obama not to attack Syrian forces.

The United States said on Friday it was planning a limited military response to punish Syria's President Bashar al-Assad for a "brutal and flagrant" chemical weapons attack it says killed more than 1,400 people in Damascus 10 days ago.

Putin told journalists that if Obama had evidence Assad's forces had the chemical weapons and launched the attack, Washington should present it to the U.N. weapons inspectors and the Security Council.

"I am convinced that it (the chemical attack) is nothing more than a provocation by those who want to drag other countries into the Syrian conflict, and who want to win the support of powerful members of the international arena, especially the United States," Putin said.

The Russian president said Obama, as a Nobel Peace Prize laureate, should remember the impact any U.S. attack would have on Syrian civilians.

World powers should discuss the Syrian crisis at a meeting of the leaders of the Group of 20 developed and developing nations in St. Petersburg next week, he added. "This (G20 summit) is a good platform to discuss the problem. Why not use it?" Putin said.

(Reporting by Denis Dyomkin; Writing by Lidia Kelly; Editing by Andrew Heavens)

Join the conversation about this story »