Are we really about to launch an attack on Syria? If you read the headlines in most of Britain's national newspapers today you would be forgiven for thinking it's a certainty.

"Missile strikes on Syria in days" (Daily Mail); "Navy ready to launch first strike on Syria" (Daily Telegraph); "We'll bomb Syria" (Daily Mirror); "Syria: air attacks loom as West finally acts" (The Independent); "Britain and US missile strike on Syria likely 'within days'" (Daily Express); "Britain & US 'to hit Syria in days'" (The Sun); "We will bomb Syria 'in days'" (Daily Star); "West eyes air strikes on Syrian military" (Financial Times).

The Times is more circumspect, "Cameron pushes Obama for missile strike on Syria", as is The Guardian, which mentions possible military action only in a sub-deck below the main heading, "Syria offer on UN team 'too little too late'".

So, given that all the papers anchor their stories to a 40-minute phone call between president Barack Obama and prime minister David Cameron, what's the truth?

The reporting of their conversation by American media is less certain about imminent missile strikes. According to the New York Times, Obama and Cameron "discussed possible responses by the international community" to the supposed use of chemical weapons by Bashar al-Assad's forces.

The paper's story, citing "administration officials", states that "a list of possible targets for a military strike has been circulating in the White House since late last week."

It quotes a single unnamed official as saying: "We are continuing to assess the facts so the president can make an informed decision about how to respond to this indiscriminate use of chemical weapons."

This is very different from the opening paragraph to Mail's much more definitive story:

"Britain and the US are set to launch missile strikes against the Syrian regime in retaliation for its barbaric chemical attack on civilians."

It added that Cameron and Obama "will finalise the details within 48 hours."

Similarly, the Telegraph story's intro says:

"Britain is planning to join forces with America and launch military action against Syria within days."

But the Washington Post's main story on the Syrian situation noses off on the weapons inspectors being allowed to to visit the site of the "alleged chemical weapons attack on civilians."

It tells of Obama's conversation with Cameron - plus calls with French president Francois Hollande sand Australian prime minister Kevin Rudd - in terms of garnering support for "possible" action.

But it would not be right to view the British newspaper reports as a propaganda exercise aimed at building public support for a military strike on Syria.

The Mail's editorial urges Cameron - said to be is "at the top of the most slippery of slopes" - not to repeat the errors of intervention in Iraq and Afghanistan.

"Under the premiership of Tony Blair," says the Mail, "Britain became involved in a succession of military adventures in which it was far from clear that our national interests were at stake." It concludes:

"Many questioned Mr Cameron's decision to send the RAF into action against Gaddafi and the continuing chaos in Libya serves as a warning that we cannot control the legacy of such actions. No one doubts Mr Cameron's sincerity in wanting to protect lives, but he must beware of repeating his predecessor Blair's disastrous mistakes."

The Mirror agrees, arguing that attacking Syria "would risk a wider, potentially disastrous conflict felt far beyond the Middle East… Mr Cameron would be guilty of a fatal mistake if he thinks war is the easy option."

And the Telegraph is similarly exercised, contending that armed intervention would be a step into the unknown.

Despite the paper saying there was little doubt that Assad's forces had killed hundreds of civilians with a chemical weapon it cannot lend its support to a military response. Instead, it says:

"People rightly feel that something must be done. In the first instance, that wish is best met by a generous humanitarian response."

The Independent also warned against intervention. Its leading article, "Crossing the red line", points out that even if military action were to aid the rebels by forcing Assad from power, that raises further the problem of what happens after that:

"The rebels are united only in detesting Mr Assad. Beyond that, they remain hopelessly split between jihadist warriors who view supportive westerners as useful idiots and mainstream Sunni opponents of the Alawite-dominated regime, all of which raises the question of how the US, Britain and France intend to help the rebels they prefer over those they fear."

In other words, the largely gung-ho news headlines are not reflected in the concerns of editorials - something of a first, I do believe.

Well, not quite. The Sun, being The Sun, rattles the sabres in time-honoured Sun fashion with a spread headlined "Kick his ass". It includes a piece by military historian Mark Almond in which he outlines what missile strikes might achieve.