Middle East specialist Michael Kerr about the British No vote on a military strike against Syria and why the US will go for it alone.

Michael Kerr is Director of the Middle East & Mediterranean Studies programme and the Centre for the Study of Divided Societies at King’s College and expert for Third Party Interventions. His latest book was published in 2012: “Lebanon: After the Cedar Revolution”.

Profil: Is the No vote in the House of Commons the end of David Cameron’s dream to join the US in a militäry expedition to Syria?

Kerr: This was not a binding parliamentary vote that rules out UK involvement in some future symbolic military action against Syria, it was a symbolic vote, and one which certainly reflects UK public opinion. It has caused a rather bitter split in parliament and a shock to PM David Cameron. It is now highly unlikely that the UK will join in any US military led intervention that occurs in the coming weeks, if indeed it does occur. The US does not need the UK to participate in a military strike against the Asad regime, but the UK's absence form an allied force will be highly symbolic and it will not help President Obama sway US public opinion in favour of any such action.

Profil: So will the West watch more poisonous gas attacks without doing anything against it?

Kerr: If compelling evidence were to emerge and it was made public, substantiating the accusations against the Syrian regime concerning its alleged use of chemical weapons, then that could alter the debate and the political process in the UK. The only pressure that the US can now bring to bear on that political process would be to provide that evidence.

Profil: Shall the US attack without Great Britain and without UN mandate?

Kerr: President Obama has said that the use of chemical weapons by the Asad regime is 'a red line' and given that the West believes that government forces are responsible for the alleged attacks in Damascus, it follows that airstrikes are a necessary response. If the US does not act militarily then it will look very weak indeed. So this is a question of US prestige and credibility. Someone has thrown down the gauntlet in Damascus and international pressure for military action is mounting. The US has said that the use of morally repugnant and internationally unacceptable weapons will bring serious consequences, thus the West must act militarily. The US doesn't have many options as Russia and China can use their vetoes on the Security Council and the Russians have already shown support for Asad on this issue, thus proceeding without a UN mandate is the most likely course.

Profil: Aside from the military option - what would you recommend the international community do to help calm the conflict in Syria? Step up cooperation with the new president in Iran?

Kerr: There is very little that the West can do diplomatically to regulate the conflict in Syria at present as the regime has been making gains and Iranian, Russian and Lebanese (in the form of Hizballah) support remains robust. Diplomacy has failed thus far and diplomats will have to wait until a ripe moment presents itself. Asad may respond to diplomatic pressure following air strikes or airstrikes may escalate the conflict. Syria is no Kosovo. The US has sought to avoid being drawn militarily into the Syrian civil war and all the international responsibilities that would come with such intervention. But given that the West has not been directly arming opposition fighters it seems unlikely that the aim of military intervention would be to remove the regime. Why? Because if it did then the West would bear a considerable degree of responsibility for filling the political vacuum in both Syria and Lebanon. Iran's position will be central to any future diplomatic solution as it has the most sway in Syria, Lebanon and Iraq. In the long-term only some form of power-sharing will prevent the partition of Syria and this would require broad international support.