Sleepless nights over Syria

The drama of a parliamentary recall, the prospect of cruise missiles thundering into Syria, and MPs agonising over a decision which, either way, will lead to people dying: the buildup to today's debate on what to do about Bashar al-Assad's chemical weapons attacks has been intense and stressful for Britain's MPs

So many of those yet to make up their minds over whether to give David Cameron permission to turn himself into another Tony Blair will have been greatly relieved by the text of the government motion released yesterday evening.

Its promise to pursue the UN route and hold a further vote authorising military action if necessary makes it far easier for wavering MPs to give the government their support. After all the talk of a military assault as soon as tomorrow, many of the backbenchers I've spoken to in the last 24 hours will be sending up a silent prayer of gratitude for the sudden release in pressure.

It's actually Ed Miliband they have to thank. After his decision late yesterday that Labour support was conditional on UN support as far as possible, David Cameron was once again reminded he is the prime minister in a hung parliament.

The concession in pursuit of consensus does not mean today's debate will be a one-sided affair. "There are no easy options here," Labour MP Mike Gapes, a passionate advocate of intervention, concedes grimly. "All are bad." The final decision has been deferred but it will not be dodged forever.

Emotion and cold-headed logic sit awkwardly side-by-side in both the pro- and anti-intervention camps. Some of those prepared to endorse a rapid attack do so because they believe the West's credibility is at stake. "If we do nothing, we are endorsing the actions of a mass murderer," Richard Ottaway, chair of the Commons' foreign affairs committee, tells me flatly. Others believe the horror of "nasty" chemical weapons must be addressed at all costs.

Calculating the potential ramifications of an attack is bewildering for everyone. "It's very rushed," Labour MP Michael McCann complains. "People like me are going to have a limited amount of information and then will be asked to vote." He, and many others, are warning an intervention means meddling in a Middle East already destabilised by the civil war. Intensifying the Sunni-Shia rivalry, as well as the proxy war between Iran and Saudi Arabia—not to mention the larger struggle between Russia and the west—leaves many horrified. And the government motion only defers those dilemmas.

The shadow of Iraq will loom large over parliament today. Labour's Roger Godsiff, who voted for the 2003 invasion that ousted Saddam Hussein, is still fuming at being "conned." Having met Assad twice, though, he knows a few missiles will not make much of a difference. "The guy's not an idiot. He's not going to give up easily."

MPs from the 2010 intake are not so easily swayed; Tory Penny Mordaunt dismissively says the "baggage" of 2003 needs to be put aside. It will be hard to ignore the events of a decade ago, though. It is why the government is at such pains to underline the difference between then and now. "There is no comparison," foreign secretary William Hague declared last night. Today's motion because the coalition has learned from Blair's mistakes.

Beyond that, the future is uncertain. "It's hard to see clearly what Britain's national interest is," Tory Conor Burns admits. He recalls a conversation with Margaret Thatcher in which the Iron Lady explained how lonely the final decision to authorise conflict is. Burns admits he has lost sleep over the issue. "Ultimately it's me who has to go to the lobby and has to exercise that's vote," he says, with more than a hint of dread in his voice.

The government's cautious motion will have helped calm him down. If progress at the UN is as limited as many fear, though, Burns and his colleagues in the Commons could find themselves facing many more sleepless nights to come.