Now Obama puts Syria strike on ice Mr Obama's intention to seek a vote means a likely delay of up to 10 days until Congress returns, unless a decision is taken to recall it sooner. Congressional leaders said they would consider the matter in the week of Sept 9. Mr Obama said he was prepared to act "without the approval of a United Nations Security Council that so far has been paralysed," but added: "This decision is too big to go ahead without debate." Although Mr Obama's Democrats have the majority in the US Senate, the House of Representatives is controlled by the Republicans, who may be less disposed to back his decision. Mr Cameron last night responded to the US president's announcement in a message on Twitter in which he wrote: "I understand and support Barack Obama's position on Syria." Earlier, Mr Obama was goaded by Vladimir Putin, the Russian president, who said that as a Nobel Peace Prize laureate, the US leader should be aware of the impact an attack would have on civilians. Mr Obama's announcement came as tensions rose after a series of developments yesterday: UN inspectors flew out of Damascus with evidence from the chemical weapons attack last week that cost the lives of more than 1,400 Syrian men, women and children. US ships continued to gather off Syria, with the addition of an amphibious assault ship carrying marines and helicopters. Refugees were fleeing Damascus, the Syrian capital, as the country's prime minister warned that its army had "its finger on the trigger" to retaliate against any attack and state television broadcast images of soldiers, fighter jets and tanks to martial music. Israel sent a dozen jet fighters and reconnaissance planes over Lebanon in 48 hours as fears grow that Hizbollah, the radical Shia militia, could retaliate for any US strike. Airlines prepared to re-route flights away from the area, a key intersection between Europe and the Middle East. It emerged that British intelligence services, including GCHQ's listening post on Cyprus, are to play a supporting role in any US strikes, despite last week's parliamentary vote ruling out British military action. Senior British government sources accused Ed Miliband of "stark raving hypocrisy" in his handling of the vote, and Labour MPs also questioned their leader's actions. Gen Lord Dannatt, the former head of the Army, writing for this paper, said Britain ran the risk of "shooting first and asking questions later" if it had joined military action against Syria this time. However, he added that Britain could still play a part in future military action in Syria. As Washington prepared to go to war without the direct support of Britain, in London the acrimony surrounding last Thursday night's Commons vote increased. It emerged that during an emergency Cabinet meeting on Thursday morning, Owen Paterson, the Environment Secretary, objected forcefully to the strikes. According to Charles Moore, writing in The Daily Telegraph today, Mr Paterson warned that there had been too little consultation with ministers and backbenchers, adding that Tory party members were hostile to any military action. Meanwhile, the war of words between Downing Street and the Labour leadership escalated as senior government sources accused Mr Miliband of "putting his party before the national interest." Aides of David Cameron said the Labour leader had consistently given the impression that he would take a "consensual" approach towards the Syrian crisis, only to change his mind the day before the key vote. Labour MPs also criticised the way their leader had handled the situation. Meg Munn, a former minister, said: "I think both leaders bear a responsibility for getting us into this position. More does need to be done in relation to Syria. Others said they were dismayed to emerge from division lobbies on Thursday evening to see horrific television images of a suspected napalm attack on schoolchildren near Aleppo, part of a BBC Panorama investigation. "You couldn't help but wonder what on earth we had just done," said one. In the US, anger at the failure by Mr Cameron to deliver on his pledge to Mr Obama continued to grow. A senior senate aide told The Sunday Telegraph that the Commons vote was being seen as a "diplomatic and political catastrophe" for both leaders. "To many Americans, Cameron's government looks more like Neville Chamberlain's government in the late 1930s," the aide said. In an article for The Sunday Telegraph, Peter Hain, the former Labour Cabinet minister, says Britain and others were "culpable for the unfolding horror" for failing to push for negotiations between Assad and the rebels. "We should have promoted a negotiated solution from the very beginning," he says. It is high time for Britain, France and the United States to change course. That would open the door for Russia to ensure Assad negotiates. Syria's prime minister, Wael al-Halqi, said the country was prepared for US strikes. "The Syrian army is fully ready, its finger on the trigger to face any challenge or scenario that they want to carry out," he said in a statement to Syrian state television. Britain's decision not to take part in an attack has left France as the sole country supporting US action. But a new poll showed the French were overwhelmingly opposed to armed intervention in Syria. It showed that 64 per cent of the country opposed taking part in military intervention in Syria and 58 per cent did not trust President François Hollande to conduct any operation.