Any US military action against Syria would amount to "support for al-Qaeda and its affiliates," Damascus has

said. Syrian Deputy Foreign Minister Faisal Mekdad also told the BBC that armed groups backed by America - not Syrian troops - had used chemical weapons. The US says it has evidence that Damascus used the nerve agent sarin in a deadly attack in August. President Barack Obama has vowed punitive action but wants Congress to vote on the issue first. The alleged chemical attack took place on 21 August in the eastern suburbs of Damascus. The US says more than 1,400 people were killed, including 426 children. Continue reading the main story

Analysis

Jeremy Bowen BBC Middle East editor, Damascus Faisal Mekdad is considered to be a very influential man within the regime. As you'd expect, the Syrian leadership is quite relishing where it is - it sees itself as eyeball to eyeball with the Americans. Syrian leaders see their country as the vanguard of Arab nationalism, the bastion of resistance to Israel. So they're standing defiant right now. I think they will continue their preparations to ride out an American strike. The French government has said it will hand over its own evidence to French lawmakers on Monday, linking the Syrian regime to the attack. "It will be a set of evidence of different kinds that will allow the regime to be clearly identified as responsible for the August 21 chemical attack," a government source told the French news agency AFP. There is growing pressure for French President Francois Hollande to hold a parliamentary vote on the issue, in line with Britain and the US. The French parliament is due to debate the issue on Wednesday. US lawmakers are due to reconvene next week, and White House officials have said they believe they will support the president. Campaigning to convince people and politicians that military intervention is the right way forward has already begun in America, correspondents say.

Continue reading the main story

US press reaction

The New York Times says that by asking Congress for authorisation to retaliate against Syria, President Obama has put himself "at the mercy of an institution that has bedevilled his presidency for years". But Amy Davidson in the New Yorker praised Mr Obama's decision to go to Congress, saying "he may have just saved his second term from being consumed by Benghazi-like recriminations". The Chicago Tribune says Mr Obama "did what he needed to do, at considerable risk to his credibility". Henry Allen in the Washington Post examines why the US believes in fighting wars for virtuous reasons. "The good war, the virtuous war. We believe in it. We have to believe in it or we wouldn't be Americans."

But by putting off an attack and seeking congressional approval, President Obama has taken the biggest gamble of his presidency, the BBC's North America editor Mark Mardell says. He adds that if Congress does not back him, it would be disastrous for the president and his decision to call for a vote would look foolish. In other developments:

UN experts have gathered evidence in Syria to determine whether chemical weapons attacks have taken place - and they are now analysing samples Arab League foreign ministers urged the world community to "take the deterrent and necessary measures" against Syria. But several members - including Lebanon and Iraq - did not back the call