The Prime Minister will convene a special "war cabinet" this afternoon, as the UK prepares to join tripartite military action against the Syrian regime following its apparent use of chemical weapons.

The Cabinet is expected to be asked to approve a form of British participation in action led by France and the US, aimed at Syrian President Bashar al Assad's chemical weapons infrastructure.

Ahead of the Cabinet meeting on Thursday, Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn is understood to have asked for an intelligence briefing on the case of intervention in Syria.

It comes after a suspected chemical attack on the Syrian city of Douma, eastern Ghouta, reportedly killed 70 people and injured 500 at the weekend.

The US military is preparing options for Donald Trump to strike Syria, after the President warned Russia to "get ready" because missiles "will be coming".


Meanwhile, Russian military police have started patrolling the site of the suspected chemical attack as regime forces took full control of Douma.

Babies caught up in 'chemical attack'

It appears Parliament will not be consulted ahead of possible UK action, which could start within hours of Cabinet approval.

That will prove controversial, after opposition parties demanded the Government respects a recent convention that the House of Commons approves UK military intervention.

On Wednesday, Mr Corbyn declared that MPs "should always be given a say on military action".

"That's a case that I've made going back many, many years in Parliament," he added.

"Obviously the situation is very serious, obviously there has to be, now, a demand for a political process to end the war in Syria.

"We cannot risk an escalation even further than it's gone already".

Liberal Democrat leader Sir Vince Cable said President al Assad had crossed "a clear red line", but also demanded the Government "present the objectives of any proposed action to Parliament".

PM: All the indications are that Syrian regime was behind chemical attack

"A unilateral response by any country, outside of a wider strategy, without allies, is not the way forward," he said.

"There must be a debate and vote in the House of Commons ahead of any military action."

Meanwhile, SNP defence spokesman Stewart McDonald wrote to the Prime Minister demanding a parliamentary vote on possible action, writing: "Any proposed change to the role of UK forces in Syria must be subject to full scrutiny and a vote in Parliament."

A number of Conservative MPs also urged some caution as they cited a lack of clarity on strategic objectives.

Sir David Amess, speaking to Sky News, implored Mrs May to follow Winston Churchill's maxim of "jaw jaw" being preferable to "war war".

Will Britain join in military strikes against Syria?

Fellow Tory MP Bob Seely, a member of the House of Commons' Foreign Affairs Committee and a supporter of action in Syria the previous time MPs voted in 2013, is now a sceptic.

He warned that without a strategy the action was "gesture bombing" and would be "really dangerous".

Conversely, Sarah Wollaston, who voted against action to deter chemical weapons use by President al Assad in 2013, supported the pro-intervention approach of younger Conservative MPs such as Foreign Affairs Select Committee chair Tom Tugendhat and former army officer Johnny Mercer.

Brexit Secretary David Davis also hinted he had changed his mind since voting against Syrian intervention in 2013.

Outlining the reason why he did not back it at the time, he told a conference on Thursday: "One was because he (David Cameron) hadn't provided the evidence and intelligence that we knew who it was.

'If he's ready to fight, he'll get the fight'

"And secondly because there was not a proper plan which was thought through properly.

"Those two things I am assured we're going to answer today."

A senior Tory revealed to Sky News the Prime Minister cannot be certain of getting the numbers, in any vote, and needed to tread carefully on the legal underpinning of any intervention.

But, the direction of travel of Government policy is that Mrs May will seek Cabinet pre-approval for this new military involvement, rather than from the House of Commons, therefore backing away from a convention set since the controversial 2003 Iraq War.