The news headlines are full of Obama and Cameron's meeting to discuss what is to be done. The Guardian reported,
'The prime minister and US president said time was running out for Assad to allow UN weapons inspectors to the areas where the attack took place. Government sources said the two leaders agreed that all options should be kept open'.It looks ominously as though the same drive towards threatening war has now been set in motion as it was in the months preceding Iraq. Though a full scale invasion is not going to happen, air strikes and aid to the FSA are most likely the 'options on the table'.
The assumption of Assad's responsibility and the problem that no conclusive proof will be found, with all the media tending to insist the responsibility primarily lies with Assad, is too good a propaganda opportunity to waste when it can be used to prove the 'credibility' of the West in dealing with the 'threat'.
The establishment of the exact facts is not considered so important. The aim is to put pressure on Russia, the better to get it to respond in such a way as to deny Assad's responsibility in the hope any evidence that subsequently comes out can be spun in favour of Hague's and Fabius's position earlier in the week.
The choreography was fairly predictable. The attempt to preempt any findings of the UN inspectors is the Iraq format. The way that Britain and France ramped up the rhetoric after the attack happened while Washington deliberated is in accordance with the format for intervention used in Libya.