UK To Strike Iraq - But Is Syria The Real Target?

This week in New York has given David Cameron what he's needed. A platform and a justification to bring British airpower to the fight against the Islamic State

There was palpable relief in the delegation travelling with the Prime Minister when I interviewed him earlier. Britain can now play a more aggressive role in the coalition its special relationship partner is building.

And the Prime Minister seems confident he will not suffer another embarrassing debacle in parliament. Ed Miliband has much to lose if he opposes him. But there is an inconsistency in Britain's role and clear limits on its intervention.

In his speech to the UN General Assembly David Cameron spoke of specific atrocities IS has carried out in Syria, the slaughter of 700 tribesmen for instance in the east of the country, and he talked of the dangers of inaction.

But Britain will not be striking IS in Syria. It will only target the organisation in Iraq. What remains to be hit there and remains exposed for further airstrikes is not clear.

IS strongholds are in Syria and any effort to destroy it, the clear endgame for both the US and UK, will require attacking it there.

The Prime Minister is not confident about either the legality of airstrikes in Syria nor the chances of persuading MPs to support the idea.

So if the Prime Minister is able to win support for intervention on Friday, which seems likely, Britain joins the air campaign late and in a limited role.

Any expansion of that across the border into Syria will need another debate in parliament. The Prime Minister's adamant about that.