The vote is a stunning defeat for a government that seemed ready to join in attacks. | REUTERS U.S. could act alone after U.K. vote

President Barack Obama’s latest geopolitical problem: His closest ally won’t help him attack Syria.

But he is not letting that stop him.


Britain’s House of Commons on Thursday evening rejected a motion from Prime Minister David Cameron to endorse British participation in military action in Syria, potentially hurting Obama’s effort to punish the Bashar Assad regime for its reported use of chemical weapons.

The White House made clear after the vote that it is willing to act alone on Syria.

( PHOTOS: Scenes from Syria)

“We have seen the result of the Parliament vote in the U.K. tonight,” National Security Council spokeswoman Caitlin Hayden said in a statement. “The U.S. will continue to consult with the U.K. government – one of our closest allies and friends.

“As we’ve said, President Obama’s decision-making will be guided by what is in the best interests of the United States,” she added. “He believes that there are core interests at stake for the United States and that countries who violate international norms regarding chemical weapons need to be held accountable.”

It is not immediately clear whether the rejection will preclude the British military from participating in possible U.S.-led airstrikes against Syria’s government, but Cameron said immediately after the vote that his government will accept the result.

“It’s clear to me that the British Parliament and the British people do not wish to see military action,” Cameron said. “I get that, and I will act accordingly.”

( Also on POLITICO: Media skepticism on Syria)

White House officials did not immediately respond to the British vote, but it is sure to add momentum to those seeking to stall or stop an American military effort in Syria.

After the vote, Rep. Justin Amash (R-Mich.) tweeted that such a motion “would fail in Congress, too.” He later tweeted: “UK Parliament votes on going to war. Congress votes on critical things, too, like renaming post offices.”

The British vote comes less than an hour after White House aides told The New York Times Obama is prepared to have the United States act alone on Syria.

“We have been trying to get the U.N. Security Council to be more assertive on Syria even before this incident,” Deputy National Security Adviser Ben Rhodes told the paper. “The problem is that the Russians won’t vote for any accountability.”

Already Thursday, more than 150 members of Congress have signaled their opposition to airstrikes on Syria without a congressional vote. House members circulated two separate letters circulated that were sent to the White House demanding a congressional role before military action takes place. One, authored by Rep. Scott Rigell (R-Va.), has more than 150 signatures from Democrats and Republicans. Another, started by Rep. Barbara Lee (D-Calif.), is signed by 53 Democrats, though many of them also signed Rigell’s letter.