UK Mulls Syria Strikes To 'Destroy' IS Threat

The Prime Minister has indicated the Government is paving the way for airstrikes on Islamic State terrorists in Syria in the wake of the Tunisian beach massacre.

David Cameron has said there is a "strong case for us doing more in Syria" but said there needed to be "clear consensus for such action" among MPs.

Defence Secretary Michael Fallon outlined the case for allowing RAF bombers to attack key IS targets ahead of a debate on the issue in the House of Commons.

Mr Cameron has promised no military action without putting it to the Commons, however, while MPs are not expected to be asked to vote on the issue today, his comment suggest a vote will be imminent.

MPs voted for airstrikes in Iraq last year but they were not asked to approve wider action to include Syria.

Mr Cameron suffered a damaging defeat over military action against Bashar Assad in Syria in 2013 when Ed Miliband led a vote against intervention that saw 30 Tory MPs rebel.

However, the situation in the country has changed considerably and the Government has indicated it is preparing for policy change on the issue.

During the debate shadow defence secretary Vernon Coaker indicated his party could support military action saying Labour would "carefully consider" proposals.

He said: "We all need to be clear about what difference any action would make to our objective of defeating Isil, about the nature of any action, its objectives and the legal basis.

"Any potential action must command the support of other nations in the region, including Iraq and the coalition already taking action in Syria.

"This is a time for a considered assessment of the best course of action we can take to defeat this deadly threat to the UK, an objective that unites us all."

:: READ: Sky's Deputy Political Editor Joey Jones on why this is a high stakes issue for the PM

It comes after Mr Cameron promised a "full spectrum" response to the murder of 30 Britons by an IS gunman last week.

The Prime Minister's official spokesman said: "The Prime Minister has long thought that ISIL poses a threat to Britain and ISIL needs to be destroyed in Syria and Iraq.

"He has said there is a strong case for us doing more in Syria but he's also been clear he thinks it would be better if there was a consensus for such action in the House.

"What changes is the growing evidence that ISIL poses a threat to our national security. In that context MPs should be thinking about these issues."

He added: "When you're faced with 30 British people murdered by a gunman where they are investigating links to ISIL, does that underline the real threat posed to us here in Britain? I think it does."

Mr Fallon said: "This is of course though a new Parliament and it is for all members to consider carefully how best to tackle Isil - an evil cailphate that does not respect state boundaries."

Speaking to Sky News Col Bob Stewart, the former UN Commander in Bosnia, said he would be in favour of the UK taking action in Syria because that is where the key strategic targets are.

He said the "world has allowed these people to terrorise huge groups of innocents".

He said: "I would very much prefer that the Arab world would get on with this and sort it out because the only way to beat the Daesh (IS) thugs is actually to beat them on the ground.

"I don't see why we should once again have to do it. We are already contributing by using air power and intelligence assets but I think the Arab world should do it.

"That's the plan but it's not working."

However, Conservative MP Crispin Blunt, who is chairman of the influential House of Commons Foreign Affairs Committee, said there was no military necessity for strikes in Syria.

He told the Radio 4 Today programme: "I would want to know whether this is a battle-winning decision. Plainly, the United Kingdom role in all this is pretty minor, and we should be concentrating on getting the battle-winning decision - which is actually getting the regional states to co-operate around the mission, which is to defeat Isil.

"There's no military necessity for this. We are not providing very many of the aircraft. Five per cent of the missions are being flown by the United Kingdom.

"Therefore it makes no practical difference, and we are getting ourselves in to a slightly more legal grey area. I don't think it's as clear as people have said. It's easy to come in as guests of the Government of Iraq at their invitation in their country. It becomes slightly more questionable when you don't have a UN Security Council resolution and you are operating in another country."