US to explain case for Syria action John Kerry, US secretary of state, is to make a statement on Syria later on Friday and the Obama administration is to release a declassified version of its intelligence on the use of chemical weapons in the country. President Barack Obama held a national security council meeting on Friday as the White House appears intent on punishing Syria's President Bashar al-Assad for what it says is his use of chemical weapons, despite the UK parliament voting against military intervention. "President Obama's decision-making will be guided by what is in the best interests of the United States," a White House statement said. Mr Obama has yet to present definitive evidence of why the US believes the Syrian regime used chemical weapons in a strike on a Damascus suburb that killed more than 300 people last week. A British intelligence assessment released on Thursday said Mr Assad was almost certainly responsible, primarily because the rebels did not have the capacity to carry out such an operation. Chuck Hagel, US defence secretary, said on Friday the administration was striving to build an international coalition to respond to the use of chemical weapons. "It is the goal of President Obama and our government . . . whatever decision is taken, that it be an international collaboration and effort," he said. François Hollande, the French president, said on Friday that Paris is also prepared to take action against Syria to deter what he described as "a monstrous violation of human rights." No strike is expected before UN weapons inspectors leave Syria and report to Ban Ki-moon, the UN secretary-general, which is expected on Saturday. Mr Hollande said: "The chemical massacre in Damascus cannot remain unpunished. If not, it would risk an escalation that would trivialise the use of these weapons and would threaten other countries. He said he did not favour a military operation to overthrow Mr Assad but a deterrent strike to punish. Asked in an interview with Le Monde newspaper if France would go ahead without British involvement, he replied: "Yes, each country is sovereign [in deciding] whether or not to participate in an operation. That applies to the UK and for France. He said he would consult "deeply" with Mr Obama later on Friday, adding that "all the options are on the table. France wants a proportional and firm action against the Damascus regime. He said as large a coalition as possible would be formed to take action if the UN Security Council failed to authorise an operation, as he feared, citing as justification for military intervention a 1925 protocol banning the use of chemical weapons. France will participate. It is ready. It will decide its position in close liaison with its allies. It is the goal of President Obama and our government . . . whatever decision is taken, that it be an international collaboration and effort Chuck Hagel, US defence secretary Germany reiterated on Friday that it does not intend to join military action against Syria. Steffen Seibert, a government spokesman, told reporters in Berlin: "We haven't considered any German military participation and still aren't doing so." David Cameron, the British prime minister, said on Friday he would continue to campaign for a "robust response" to the use of chemical weapons in Syria and would work with the US to put pressure on Mr Assad. "I haven't spoken to [Mr Obama] since the debate and the vote but I would expect to speak to him over the next day or so," he said on a UK television interview. I don't think it's a question of having to apologise. Xinhua, the Chinese news agency, reported on Friday that Wang Yi, foreign minister, told Mr Ban that China supported the weapons inspectors" investigation and there should be no intervention before it "finds out what really happened." "All parties should avoid prejudging the results, and certainly ought not to forcefully push for the Security Council to take action," Mr Wang told Mr Ban. A political resolution is still the only way out. The British decision came as a surprise to Paris, used to a robust position on international crises by London, which quickly supplied assistance to France's military intervention against Islamist militants in Mali earlier this year. In 2003, the two sides were split when France refused to join the US-led invasion of Iraq. Now France finds itself contemplating action alongside the US without British participation. Mr Hollande first declared on Tuesday that he was ready to "punish" Damascus but has adopted a more measured stance than initially taken by Mr Cameron. He agreed on Thursday with Angela Merkel, the German chancellor, to await the verdict of the UN inspectors before determining what action to take. But he told Le Monde the Syrian situation was different from Iraq because the use of chemical weapons was not in question and there was no intention to enforce regime change. Mr Hollande has summoned the French parliament to debate Syria on September 4. Although the French president does not require a parliamentary vote to take military action, he will be anxious to achieve as strong a political consensus as possible. Opinion polls in France have shown lukewarm public support for a strike on Syria, with a small majority favouring a UN operation but greater scepticism towards French involvement. But the polls show strongest support for French action among Mr Hollande's socialist supporters. The leadership of the centre-right opposition UMP party has offered cautious support for Mr Hollande's stance, but there is opposition on the far left and far right. The latest US opinion poll on intervention in Syria, published by NBC News on Friday, found that 50 per cent of Americans oppose military action against Mr Assad compared with 42 per cent in favour, unless it is confined to firing cruise missiles from warships. Then, 50 per cent are supportive and 44 per cent against. Eight out of 10 Americans believe Mr Obama should obtain congressional approval for a strike even though he is not legally obliged to do so.