Theresa May cautious over no-fly-zones in Syria

Instead of batting away the question about no-fly-zones over Syria, Theresa May in PMQs went into quite a bit of detail about the negatives involved. I heard her list four reasons why they’re not a good idea, starting with the one Boris Johnson focused on yesterday (you have to be prepared to consider shooting down a Syrian and or Russian military aircraft), but then going even further.

So Theresa May told the Commons: “Actually who is it there to protect? Would it lead to Assad bombing people in the expectation they would move to that zone.

“How would you actually enforce a safe area there and who would do that enforcement? There are many questions that need to be looked at.”

This was Theresa May trying to make quite sure that nobody gets ahead of themselves after yesterday’s debate on Syria. That occasion inevitably attracted supporters of greater involvement including the extra military commitment required for No Fly Zones. Theresa May wasn’t in the chamber but will know the mood and will want to avoid a head of steam building up.

One of her closest advisers told an MP recently who was inquiring about Syria, that he shouldn’t expect “foreign adventures” like Libya again on her watch. Everything we know about Mrs May suggests that she would be very cautious about increasing overseas involvement like a no-fly-zone.

After the Brexit vote the government was keen to insist it was still outward looking, a “player on the world stage,” ready to fulfil its commitments.

That might make you expect the government to be keen to lean into the US if a call for military help came in the near future. It hasn’t come under President Obama on Theresa May’s brief watch. It could come under Hillary Clinton (if you measure her by her record rather than campaign rhetoric).

Today’s words, carefully prepared, underline how very difficult Theresa May’s instincts would make it to answer that call if it related to an expanded role in Syria…maybe whatever country the call related to.