Chief Rabbi designate Ephraim Mirvis says he knows there will be challenges
Ephraim Mirvis is due to be installed as the new chief rabbi of the UK and Commonwealth at a ceremony in London.
The former chief rabbi of Ireland will succeed Lord Jonathan Sacks, who has held the post since 1991.
The Prince of Wales is due to join Jewish and other faith leaders for the event at St John's Wood Synagogue.
The chief rabbi is traditionally seen as the figurehead of British Jews and Rabbi Mirvis has said reversing falling membership was a key challenge.
However, his new role is only officially representative of the United Synagogue, the biggest wing of orthodox Judaism in the UK.
Some Liberal and Reform Jews have questioned his role, while the ultra-orthodox community looks elsewhere for religious authority.
'Hand of warmth'
In a BBC interview ahead of taking up the role, Rabbi Mirvis said: "As the incoming chief rabbi I extend a hand of warmth, of friendship, to my colleagues who are in movements outside of the orthodox movement and with all of their members.
"I would like them to know that I would like to work closely with them. Unity of the Jewish people is of enormous importance.
"Within our own ranks we need to build on that which unites us and not to concentrate so much on that which separates us. And I will do my utmost to ensure that we will indeed achieve that unity."
He has also said that he would like to "transform communities" so that synagogues "are not merely places where people come along to pray, but rather that they should be powerhouses of Jewish cultural social educational and religious activity".
Rabbi Mirvis, who was born in South Africa in 1956, is currently rabbi at Finchley Synagogue in north London.
He is married to Valerie, a local authority senior social worker, and they have four sons. Their daughter, Liora Graham, died in 2011 after a long battle with cancer.
Rabbi Mirvis was a rabbi in Dublin before becoming Ireland's chief rabbi in 1985, a post he held until 1992. He was chosen as the new chief rabbi after a two year search.
Alex Hales scored a blistering 94 as England beat Australia by 27 runs to draw their Twenty20 series 1-1.
Hales and his Nottinghamshire team-mate Michael Lumb (43) put on 111 for the first wicket to help propel England to 195-5, with Fawad Ahmed taking 3-25.
Opener David Warner's 52 off 43 balls kept Australia in contention well into their run chase.
But Jade Dernbach took three wickets as the tourists collapsed from 111-3 to end well short on 168-9.
Dernbach finished with figures of 3-23 to back up his impressive return of 3-34 in the first match on Thursday, when Aaron Finch's record 156
catapulted Australia to a 39-run victory.
"These two games Jade has bowled fantastically well for us," said England captain Stuart Broad.
"He has shown his skill in Twenty20 cricket on two pretty good batting surfaces. The rest of our bowlers can look at that - something different skill-wise.
"His figures over the two games have been superb and hopefully that form can continue until the World Cup [in Bangladesh next year]."
England's openers made light of losing the toss to set the hosts on course for an imposing total.
England's highest Twenty20 innings
99* - Luke Wright v Afghanistan (2012)
99 - Alex Hales v West Indies (2012)
94 - Alex Hales v Australia (2013)
90* - Joe Root v Australia (2013)
85* - Eoin Morgan v South Africa (2009)
80* - Alex Hales v New Zealand (2013)
Hales and Lumb, under pressure for their places from Hampshire's in-form Michael Carberry, peppered the boundary and found the gaps in the large Chester-le-Street outfield to keep the scoreboard moving apace.
After Lumb's dismissal, Luke Wright (30) and Eoin Morgan (20) ensured England remained on course for a big score, only for three wickets in the last seven balls to keep the hosts in range for Australia.
Hales, who scored 99 against West Indies last year, fell six short of that elusive century when he slapped James Faulkner to long-on.
Ahmed then removed Jos Buttler and Morgan in the last over of the innings, which yielded only eight runs.
England captain Stuart Broad dismissed Finch in Australia's second over and Morgan's direct hit ran out Shane Watson in the third to leave the tourists in difficulty on 15-2.
Warner countered with three sixes and five fours before slicing Dernbach to Hales at deep cover to initiate a dramatic slump.
First Hampshire left-arm spinner Briggs removed George Bailey and Matthew Wade, and when Dernbach dismissed Glenn Maxwell (27) and James Faulkner from successive balls, the game was up.
Captain Bailey drew positives from the promising performance of Pakistan-born leg-spinner Ahmed in only his second international appearance.
"He's pretty passionate. It meant a lot to him and would have meant a lot to all the people who have supported him," Bailey said.
"It was fantastic for him. We saw he has good control and good skills. He is someone who can have a lot of success."
England play a one-day international against Ireland in Dublin on Tuesday, while the Australians take on Scotland in Edinburgh.
The Ashes rivals will then contest a five-match one-day series, starting at Headingley on Friday.
Mr Obama said the US could not turn a blind eye to what had happened in Damascus
President Barack Obama says the US should take military action against Syria and he will seek congressional authorisation for intervention.
The US says the Syrian government carried out chemical weapons attacks on 21 August in which 1,429 people died.
Mr Obama said the operation would be limited in duration and strong to deter future chemical attacks. Congress is due to reconvene on 9 September.
The Syrian government denies it was behind the attacks and blames rebels.
UN inspectors who have been investigating the attacks arrived in the Netherlands on Saturday with samples from site visits, which will be tested in laboratories in Europe.
The Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons, which is overseeing the investigation, said the whole testing process could take up to three weeks, although "every effort" would be made to expedite it.
Senior White House officials told the BBC's Katty Kay that Mr Obama's decision to seek congressional approval was made by the president on Friday afternoon. It had not been planned until then.
The officials added that they believed they would get congressional approval, although they were aware of the risks, our correspondent adds.
Later on Saturday, Mr Obama formally asked Congress to authorise military action.
The draft legislation seeks approval for the use of force to prevent the Syrian government from carrying out chemical weapons attacks.
President Obama was elected to end America's wars, and in reaction to the fallout of the invasion of Iraq. He knows, as he frankly admitted, that Americans are "weary of war". Many of his own supporters want him to focus on what he calls "nation-building at home".
But he is trapped within his own red lines and perhaps the need to send a signal to Iran and North Korea. White House sources say the British vote shows the dangers of allowing a debate - but it also removed a key ally and so, ironically, made support at home even more vital.
It also increased the demands from Congress itself to have a say. A recent poll indicated 80% of Americans thought Congress should vote before any military action. Some will say the decision shows President Obama is weak. It certainly shows the weakness of his position - he wants to take action that isn't popular and home or abroad.
But it is sensible to make sure the responsibility for unpopular action is shared with other politicians, and canny for domestic reasons to keep a very sour Congress sweet. Some might even argue that, in a democracy, it is the right thing to do.
President Obama said the US was prepared to strike whenever it chose. "Our capacity to execute this mission is not time-sensitive."
He added: "We cannot and will not turn a blind eye to what happened in Damascus."
As commander-in-chief, Mr Obama has the constitutional authority to order military action without the backing of Congress.
However, he said it was important to have the debate.
Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell welcomed the announcement, saying the president's role as commander-in-chief was "always strengthened when he enjoys the expressed support of the Congress".
Republican Senators John McCain and Lindsey Graham, who have been pushing for US intervention in Syria, also gave their backing to the vote.
However, they warned against limited strikes which would not change the balance of the conflict, calling the prospect "an inadequate response to the crimes against humanity that [Syrian President] Assad and his forces are committing".
The BBC's Katy Watson in Washington says that if Mr Obama is to intervene, he wants the people - and politicians - on his side.
The UN wants swift laboratory analysis of samples obtained in Damascus
But what is unclear is what action he would take if Congress votes against involvement, our correspondent says.
On Thursday, British MPs defeated a government motion to take part in any military action in Syria.
After the president's address UK Prime Minister David Cameron tweeted: "I understand and support Barack Obama's position".
Mr Obama did not speak to Mr Cameron before his statement but did call President Hollande of France, the White House said.
France has also backed military action in Syria. The French parliament is due to reconvene next week.
France will wait for discussions in the US Congress and French parliament before making a decision on military intervention, a French official told the Associated Press.
The BBC's security correspondent Frank Gardner examines what we know about the Syria attack on 21 August
Earlier on Saturday, Russian President Vladimir Putin challenged the US to present to the UN evidence that Syria had attacked rebels with chemical weapons.
Mr Putin said it would be "utter nonsense" for Syria's government to provoke opponents with such attacks.
Russia - a key ally of Syria - has previously warned that "any unilateral military action bypassing the UN Security Council" would be a "direct violation of international law".
Moscow, along with China, has vetoed two previous draft resolutions on Syria.
The BBC's Jeremy Bowen in Damascus says people there are worried and are making preparations.
They do not know what Mr Obama meant by a limited attack and what consequences it will have, he adds.
The main findings of the unclassified US evidence state that:
the attacks killed 1,429 people, including 426 children
Syrian military chemical weapons personnel were operating in the area in the three days before the attack
Satellite evidence shows rockets launched from government-held areas 90 minutes before the first report of chemical attack
100 videos attributed to the attack show symptoms consistent with exposure to a nerve agent
Communications were intercepted involving a senior Damascus official who "confirmed chemical weapons were used" and was concerned about UN inspectors obtaining evidence
Syrian President Bashar al-Assad has said his country will defend itself against any Western "aggression".
Forces which could be used against Syria:
• Four US destroyers - USS Gravely, USS Ramage, USS Barry and USS Mahan - are in the eastern Mediterranean, equipped with cruise missiles. The missiles can also be fired from submarines, but the US Navy does not reveal their locations
• Airbases at Incirlik and Izmir in Turkey, and in Jordan, could be used to carry out strikes
• Two aircraft carriers - USS Nimitz and USS Harry S Truman are in the wider region
• French aircraft carrier Charles de Gaulle is currently in Toulon in the western Mediterranean
• French Rafale and Mirage aircraft can also operate from Al-Dhahra airbase in the UAE
Coaches Jose Mourinho and Pep Guardiola will renew their rivalry on Friday as Europa League champions Chelsea face Champions League winners Bayern Munich in the Uefa Super Cup in Prague.
Guardiola's Barcelona and Mourinho's Real Madrid competed in some heated encounters for two seasons, but the new Bayern coach played down the rivalry.
"We're here for the players, not the coaches," said Guardiola.
"Millions of people around the world will watch the game, not the coaches."
However, in Thursday's Uefa Super Cup pre-match news conference, the Portuguese manager was reminded that his record against Guardiola in Spain was only three wins in 15 meetings.
"Your statistics are very wrong," replied Mourinho. "Go and see what happened when I was with Inter in the Champions League semi-final, the King's Cup final with Real in Spain, the Super Cup in Spain [2012].
"Maybe you are right and I am wrong but I don't care. This is not about us, it's about Chelsea and Bayern."
Mourinho, 50, has never won the European Super Cup. He led Porto and Inter Milan to Champions League success, but left the clubs following the victories. In 2003, his Uefa Cup-winning Porto team lost the 2003 edition to Valencia.
Chelsea's new signings Willian and Samuel Eto'o have not travelled to Prague with the 26-man squad that includes David Luiz (hamstring) and Tomas Kalas (leg), who have not played this season.
Bayern midfielder Bastian Schweinsteiger and defensive players Javi Martinez and Jan Kirchhoff face late fitness tests.
Chelsea squad: Cech, Schwarzer, Hilario, Blackman, Ivanovic, Cole, Luiz, Essien, Ramires, Lampard, Torres, Mata, Oscar, Mikel, Moses, Schurrle, De Bruyne, Van Ginkel, Hazard, Lukaku, Ba, Cahill, Terry, Azpilicueta, Kalas, Bertrand.
29 August 2013Last updated at 21:59 ETBy Tara McKelveyBBC News Magazine
US officials hope that any military assault on Syria will be surgical and limited. But what does the US do after the missiles or bombs have fallen?
It could go either way. The US may attack - or may not. "I've not made a decision," US President Barack Obama said on Wednesday.
Mr Obama has maintained that if the Syrian government uses chemical weapons, the US will act militarily.
And last week, according to US officials, President Bashar al-Assad's forces deployed poison gas against rebels in a Damascus suburb. More than 1,000 people, including women and children, were reported killed.
Syrian government officials say they did not use chemical weapons, but the US is ready to act.
'We are prepared'
UN inspectors are looking for evidence of a gas attack in the Damascus suburb, and plan to finish their work on Friday.
Meanwhile officials in Washington DC are laying the groundwork for military operations.
"We are prepared," Defence Secretary Chuck Hagel told the BBC.
If US officials proceed with military operations, they will likely be supported by Turkey and France, at least in some fashion. They will not have the backing of the UK, where Parliament on Thursday night rejected a government motion supporting intervention in Syria.
Nor is the UN Security Council expected to support an attack, because the Russians are opposed.
The US military would most likely use Tomahawk cruise missiles for an attack on the Syrian government forces. These missiles are now stored on destroyers in the eastern Mediterranean.
The missiles would not be fired at places where chemical weapons might be stored, since poisonous gas could spread or chemical agents could fall into the wrong hands.
Instead, military facilities would be targeted - radio centres, command posts and missile launchers, says Douglas Ollivant, who served as an operations officer with the Army's Fifth Cavalry Regiment in Iraq.
The initial military operation would be fast.
Public opinion
"It would be a fairly short, sharp action - much like Operation Desert Fox," a 1998 military operation in Iraq, says Peter Mansoor, an Ohio State University professor of military history who served as executive officer for David Petraeus, a retired US Army general, in Iraq.
Mr Obama has been looking for a way to retaliate against the Assad regime for the chemical weapons. If he proceeds with a missile strike, he will follow a long line of US presidents who have tried to avoid bloody ground battles.
The missiles would likely be deployed from the sea, without putting Americans in danger.
This option is more palatable to the US public than the deployment of ground troops. Most Americans do not want the US to get involved in the Syria conflict, according to a Quinnipiac University poll.
Yet roughly half of the Americans polled said they were open to military action - if the operations were done from a distance.
They don't want to do something that could look like an empty gesture"
End QuoteSuzanne NosselFormer deputy assistant secretary of state
Indeed, remotely controlled attacks such as air strikes have been called "the American way of war" by the authors of an article in Foreign Affairs magazine.
Unfortunately, the notion of effective and pain-free distance warfare is illusory.
In March 2003, the US "shock and awe" bombing campaign in Iraq did not on its own bring down Saddam Hussein.
"It still required a ground force invasion," said Kalev Sepp, a former special forces officer who is now a senior lecturer at the US Naval Postgraduate School.
Besides that, bombs and missiles are only as effective as the intelligence targeting them.
In 1998, US cruise missiles destroyed a pharmaceutical factory in Sudan, because intelligence analysts had believed it to be a chemical weapons factory.
An earlier military strategy based on remotely controlled strikes, the Nato air war in Kosovo, has reportedly been discussed during high-level Obama administration meetings about Syria.
Not everything went smoothly during that bombing campaign, either - the US blew up the Chinese embassy.
"There's these mistakes - shortfalls - and they have counterproductive value," says Mr Sepp.
'You failed'
Mr Obama says that the objective of any military strike would simply be to warn the Assad regime not to use chemical weapons again.
"The Assad regime, which is involved in a civil war trying to protect itself, will have received a pretty strong signal," Mr Obama said.
What happens afterwards, though, is anybody's guess.
"They don't want to do something that could look like an empty gesture," says Suzanne Nossel, who served as a deputy assistant secretary of state during Obama's first term.
"They'll wait for a reaction. Does Assad step it up with the rhetoric - 'you failed in Iraq, you failed in Vietnam'? Or does he take the beating?"
If the Assad regime decides to ratchet things up, Mr Obama has an array of options - none of them good.
"The range is, you do nothing - all the way up to large-scale air and ground campaigns to remove the Assad regime," says Mr Sepp.
"You can send in special forces to train and organise the rebels. But it's impossible to do that clandestine. So then you have to have Americans on the ground - and they're being killed. Is that worth overthrowing the Assad regime for?"
US President Barack Obama has said he fully respects David Cameron's approach after Parliament blocked UK involvement in possible military action in Syria.
The men spoke by phone for 15 minutes, and the tone of the conversation was said to be friendly.
The UK prime minister reiterated he still wanted a strong response to the suspected chemical weapons attack.
According to Downing Street, Mr Obama said he had not yet decided what action the US would take over Syria.
A Downing Street spokesman said: "The prime minister made clear that he strongly believes in the need for a tough and robust response to the appalling war crime committed by the Assad regime in Ghouta.
"The PM explained that he wanted to build a consensual approach in Britain for our response and that the government had accepted the clear view of the House against British military action.
"President Obama said he fully respected the PM's approach and that he had not yet taken a decision on the US response."
Foreign Secretary William Hague said US Secretary of State John Kerry had thanked him for the UK's "steadfast friendship", and they were united on ending the Syria conflict and use of chemical weapons.
The White House believes President Bashar al-Assad's regime was responsible for the chemical attack on 21 August which it says killed 1,429 people in the Ghouta suburb of Damascus - a figure far higher than previously reported.
"We know rockets came only from regime-controlled areas and landed only in opposition-held areas," Mr Kerry said earlier.
"All of these things we know, the American intelligence community has high confidence."
Ministers ruled out British involvement in any military action on Thursday evening after MPs blocked a government motion which called for military action if it was backed up by evidence from the UN weapons inspectors.
Despite the result of the vote, the US said it would continue to seek a coalition for military intervention, while France said the vote did not change its resolve about the need to act.
The president and prime minister agreed the US and UK would work closely together on a wider response to the Syrian crisis and try to find a solution.
Russia - which has close ties with the the government of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad - welcomed the UK's rejection of a military strike, while Germany has ruled out participation in any action.
'Whole region' threatened
Meanwhile, Number 10 said it was "not too worried" by the absence of the UK from a roll call of allies in Mr Kerry's speech earlier.
Mr Kerry made a point of describing France as America's "oldest ally" while not mentioning the UK.
A Downing Street spokesman said: "The president stressed his appreciation of his strong friendship with the prime minister and of the strength, durability and depth of the special relationship between our two countries. They agreed that their co-operation on international issues would continue in the future."
Mr Cameron said in an interview on Friday it was a "regret" that he had been unable to build a consensus on the response to the suspected chemical weapons attack.
However, he insisted the UK remained "deeply engaged" on the world stage.
Ian Pannell: The victims "arrived like the walking dead"
The inspectors have finished their investigation and are expected to deliver their preliminary findings to UN secretary general Ban Ki-moon on Saturday.
Meanwhile in Syria, the BBC's Middle East editor Jeremy Bowen said he had spoken to people inside President Assad's administration who were "cock-a-hoop" at the UK vote. "They believe it counts as a victory for them," he added.
"We will defend ourselves," Dr Bassam Abu Abdullah from the Syrian Information Ministry said, warning of danger "not only on the Syrian people but... the whole region" if the US decided to attack.
But Mr Cameron vowed to "continue to take a case to the United Nations", adding: "We will continue to work in all the organisations we are members of - whether the EU, or Nato, or the G8 or the G20 - to condemn what's happened in Syria.
"It's important we uphold the international taboo on the use of chemical weapons."
There had been suggestions from ministers, including Defence Secretary Phillip Hammond, that Britain's rejection of military action would harm its relationship with the US.
Mr Hammond warned against the vote allowing Britain to "turn into a country that prefers to turn its back".
"We must stay engaged with the world," he told the BBC.
UN weapons inspectors visited a hospital in a government-controlled area of Damascus
The Foreign Office advised against all but essential travel to Lebanon because of a "heightened risk of anti-Western sentiment" linked to the possibility of military action in Syria. The BBC understands that the families of British diplomats are being evacuated
Former Australian foreign minister Gareth Evans - architect of the so-called "responsibility to protect" doctrine - accused the UK of "making things up as it goes along". He blamed the government's "mishandling of the politics" for what he said was a "disappointing" vote against intervention
The Turkish Foreign Minister Ahmet Davutoglu said there was "no doubt" President Assad's forces carried out the chemical attack
Labour leader Ed Miliband told the BBC: "I think ill thought-through military action would have made life worse, not better, for the Syrian people."
He accused the government of not learning the lessons of Iraq, adding MPs had "sent a message" that British forces would not be deployed "without going through the United Nations and without ensuring we have regard to the consequences in the region".
Earlier he said Mr Cameron was guilty of "reckless and impulsive leadership".
And the prime minister faced criticism from his own side, with former shadow home secretary David Davis accusing him of making a "shaky argument" for intervention.
"There was feeling of rushing to action," he told BBC Radio 4's World at One programme. "It's more important to get this right than to do it on a 10-day timetable".
Labour shadow frontbencher Diane Abbott said Mr Miliband best reflected the views of the British people on military action in Syria.
She told the BBC: "Unilateral American bombing and military action in the Middle East does not work, it only makes the killing and the slaughter worse.
"Any military intervention has to be genuinely international and the UN is the only means to do that."
Former Liberal Democrat leader Lord Ashdown, meanwhile, has been critical of the decision to not take part in military action, saying the UK was "hugely diminished".
More than 100,000 people are estimated to have died since the conflict erupted in March 2011 and at least 1.7 million refugees displaced.
The violence began when anti-government protests during the Arab Spring uprisings were met with a brutal response by the Syrian security forces.
President Assad's regime has blamed foreign involvement and armed gangs for the conflict.
How could a potential strike be launched?Forces which could be used against Syria:
• Four US destroyers - USS Gravely, USS Ramage, USS Barry and USS Mahan - are in the eastern Mediterranean, equipped with cruise missiles. The missiles can also be fired from submarines, but the US Navy does not reveal their locations
• Airbases at Incirlik and Izmir in Turkey, and in Jordan, could be used to carry out strikes
• Two aircraft carriers - USS Nimitz and USS Harry S Truman are in the wider region
• French aircraft carrierCharles de Gaulle is currently in Toulon in the western Mediterranean
• French Raffale and Mirage aircraft can also operate from Al-Dhahra airbase in the UAE
Russian President Vladimir Putin has challenged the US to present to the UN evidence that Syria attacked rebels with chemical weapons near Damascus.
Mr Putin said it would be "utter nonsense" for Syria's government to provoke opponents with such attacks.
US President Barack Obama says he is considering military action against Syria after intelligence reports that 1,429 people were killed on 21 August.
UN weapons inspectors have now left Syria and arrived in the Netherlands.
They are taking the evidence they gathered during four days of site visits to the Organisation for the Prevention of Chemical Weapons, in The Hague.
The BBC's security correspondent Frank Gardner examines what we know about the Syria attack on 21 August
The samples are thought to include soil, swabs from munitions, blood and hair from the victims and, experts say, possibly even flesh from dead bodies.
The UN has said its inspectors had been able to carry out a "wide range of fact-finding activities". However, their mandate is limited to determining the use of chemical weapons and not who used them.
UN spokesman Martin Nesirky refused to set a timeframe for the results of lab tests and the inspectors' full report.
He described as "grotesque" the suggestion that the departure of inspectors from Syria "somehow opens the window for military action".
The UN's humanitarian work in Syria would continue, he said.
Obama statement
The US says hundreds of children were among those killed in the suspected chemical weapons attacks, which it blames on the Syrian government.
Syria says the US claim is "full of lies" and says rebels carried out the attacks.
Mr Obama is to make a statement on Syria at 17:15 GMT but will not announce any imminent military action, the White House says.
Senior officials are holding conference calls on Saturday about Syria with both Republican and Democratic senators.
Mr Obama said on Friday the US was planning a "limited, narrow" military response that would not involve "boots on the ground".
There are those in Syria who will cheer on the US action and those who will be quite worried by it, but I think everyone is making some preparation.
People are trying to buy what they can, stockpile things, get water, bread, food that lasts, because they don't know what's going to happen.
They don't know what President Obama means by a limited attack and what consequences that may have for their lives and the degree to which it would stay limited.
The BBC's Jeremy Bowen in Damascus says people are worried and are making preparations.
They do not know what Mr Obama meant by a limited attack and what consequences it will have, he adds.
Speaking to journalists in the Russian far-eastern city of Vladivostok, Mr Putin urged Mr Obama - as a Nobel Peace Prize laureate - to think about future victims in Syria before using force.
He said it was ridiculous to suggest the Syrian government was to blame for the attack, calling it a "provocation by those who want to drag other countries into the Syrian conflict".
"Syrian government troops are on the offensive and have surrounded the opposition in several regions," he said.
"In these conditions, to give a trump card to those who are calling for a military intervention is utter nonsense."
Russia's Vladimir Putin challenges US on Syria claims
He said that the US failure to present evidence to the international community was "simply disrespectful".
"If there is evidence it should be shown. If it is not shown, then there isn't any," he said.
The main findings of the unclassified US evidence state that:
the attack killed 1,429 people, including 426 children
Syrian military chemical weapons personnel were operating in the area in the three days before the attack
Satellite evidence shows rockets launched from government-held areas 90 minutes before the first report of chemical attack
100 videos attributed to the attack show symptoms consistent with exposure to a nerve agent
Communications were intercepted involving a senior Damascus official who "confirmed chemical weapons were used" and was concerned about UN inspectors obtaining evidence
'Completely unexpected'
Russia - a key ally of Syria - has previously warned that "any unilateral military action bypassing the UN Security Council" would be a "direct violation of international law".
Moscow, along with China, has vetoed two previous draft resolutions on Syria.
Barack Obama: "We're not considering any boots on the ground approach"
Mr Putin also expressed surprise at a vote in the British parliament on Thursday ruling out participation in military action.
"I will be honest: this was completely unexpected for me," he said.
"This shows that in Great Britain, even if it is the USA's main geopolitical ally in the world... there are people who are guided by national interests and common sense, and value their sovereignty."
Meanwhile in France - seen as the main US ally since the UK vote - an opinion poll suggested that 64% opposed the use of force.
Neither France nor the US needs parliamentary approval for military action.
Syrian President Bashar al-Assad has said his country will defend itself against any Western "aggression".
Forces which could be used against Syria:
• Four US destroyers - USS Gravely, USS Ramage, USS Barry and USS Mahan - are in the eastern Mediterranean, equipped with cruise missiles. The missiles can also be fired from submarines, but the US Navy does not reveal their locations
• Airbases at Incirlik and Izmir in Turkey, and in Jordan, could be used to carry out strikes
• Two aircraft carriers - USS Nimitz and USS Harry S Truman are in the wider region
• French aircraft carrier Charles de Gaulle is currently in Toulon in the western Mediterranean
• French Rafale and Mirage aircraft can also operate from Al-Dhahra airbase in the UAE
