US's planned attack on Syria

Ok, if the Syrian government did launch chemical weapon attacks on its people, it deserves an international response. But here is a simple question: why is the US not willing to wait for the formal report of the UN inspectors, which, it appears, will be available in just four days' time. Note that the visit of the UN inspectors had the concurrence of the Syrian government. As usual, one must turn to Atimes for a dispassionate analysis of the unfolding situation.

In an companion piece, M K Bhadrakumar, the former Indian diplomat, argues that an American attack on Syria provides just the right argument for Iran to go ahead with its plans to acquire nuclear weapons.He also outlines the rationale for an attack that falls well short of being an all-out war:

In sum, the plan behind the "limited" attack is to degrade the Syrian armed forces. The political objective is clear. The Obama administration insists that it is not "regime change''. What it means is that the US and its allies would hope that coming under immense pressure of death and destruction, the Syrian armed forces might begin, finally, to begin to question President Bashar al-Assad's leadership quality, which, in turn, could lead to a coup against him that will not be a "regime change" and yet a sufficient-enough "regime change''.