It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
If you can read this message, please contact us immediately at the following email address:
We'd like to communicate.
Ever since the start of the terrible Syrian conflict almost six years ago, the British government has wanted Western military intervention to help get rid of President Assad.
But this policy seemed to have failed. Assad appeared close to winning the war, as Trump acknowledged last week when his press secretary said that Asad staying was a 'political reality that we have to accept.'
But then came Tuesday's dreadful chemical attack on the village of Khan Shaikhoun in northern Syria.
Instantly, the British and American governments blamed Assad for the horror, and within 72 hours the U.S. launched a revenge missile assault on the airbase from which the chemical attack was believed to have been launched.
The exultation in Whitehall at this turnaround of events is all the greater because it marks such a extraordinary volte face by Donald Trump.
For it is less than three months since he took office and pledged non-intervention in Syria.
In order to counsel his White House team about the folly of this course, Foreign Secretary Boris Johnson went to Washington to lobby them.
That attempt may have been fruitless at the time but Trump has now, it seems, been converted to supporting the need for military intervention.
Unfortunately, I cannot share the British government's exultation which evokes the mood in No. 10 on the eve of the Iraq war in 2003 - with Theresa May now at risk of copying the poodle-like subservience Tony Blair showed to the then US President George W Bush.
Back then, Blair took us to war on the assurances that it was being done with the noble motive of getting rid of the evil dictator Saddam Hussein who posed a threat to world peace.
We were told that western intelligence services (including MI6) had irrefutable evidence that Saddam possessed weapons of mass destruction, which he was ready to use against his own people and the rest of the world.
Similarly, today, we are told with cast-iron certainty that Assad ordered this week's chemical attack and that he is an evil man in the Saddam mould.
Naturally, Assad denies using chemical weapons and his claim is backed by his Russian allies.
Indeed, considering that Assad has been in a stronger position than at any point in the last five years, what would be the point in inviting widespread censure for ordering such an illegal and horrific attack.
The truth is that he has all but won the war. It is only a few days until a major international conference in Paris is due to discuss the Syrian situation.http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-4413520/I-feel-fearful-future-says-PETER-OBORNE.html