Barack Obama has wanted to topple Bashar al-Assad for a long time. Now he has a "cause," or rather an excuse. Secretary of State John Kerry claims that Syria's use of chemical weapons is "undeniable," and that "this international norm cannot be violated without consequences."

Is this really so? George W. Bush, and in particular Dick Cheney, were dead sure that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction. It was only a pretense, covering up their ulterior motives.

Obama has been in consultation with Cameron and Hollande, who has been itching to attack Syria, as he did Libya. Are they in such a hurry that they cannot wait for the report from the UN investigation team? U.S. war ships have moved into the Mediterranean, ready to launch cruise missiles at Syrian targets. Other options include air strikes launched from Jordan, and B-2 strikes from the U.S. mainland. Have they considered the consequences?

Military action without UNSC approval is illegal. They won't get that authorization with Russia and China holding the veto. Are they going to go bypass the UN?

Syria is in such a position that "by pulling one hair the whole body would be affected" as the Chinese saying goes. Russia, Iran and Hezbollah will come to Syria's aid. Saudi Arabia and the other members of the GCC as well as Turkey and perhaps Israel, will join the attack. Lebanon is badly divided. Al Qaeda is playing a significant role too. The entire area will be a sea of fire.

Even if the U.S. attacks, it won't be able to change the overall situation. As Anthony Cordesmann of the Center for Strategic and International Studies wrote in an online post, the military impact of a U.S. air strike"will be marginal at best." The U.S. will under no circumstances commit on the ground.

The Washington Post polled its readers. Sixty-four percent are against Western interference in the Syrian conflict; only 36 percent support it. A Reuters/Ipsos poll found that 60 percent of Americans believe that the U.S. should stay out of Syria's civil war; only 9 percent favor intervention. Support rises to 25 percent if it is proved that Assad used chemical weapons. But 46 percent still say that the U.S. should not act.

Congress is in recess, and will not be reconvened until September 9. It is reported that some lawmakers suggest that a brief strike in response to the use of chemical weapons would not require prior notification. Don't they need solid evidence?

Why would Assad, who has the upper hand on the battlefield, want to use chemical weapons against his own people and give the West an excuse to intervene? On the other hand, the rebels, who are not known for scruples, have every reason to plant "evidence" to save themselves.

The West blames Damascus for delaying permission for the UN team to enter the war zone, trying to destroy evidence. But Foreign Policy reports that it is the UN itself that was blocking its own investigators. Kevin Kennedy, a retired US Marine colonel who heads the UN Department of Safety and Security, said on Friday that he had not given the investigation team the green light to visit the site of the supposed attacks, as it is an active war zone.

Sure enough, the UN team came under attack by unidentified gunmen, as soon as they entered the war zone.

There is no military solution to the Syrian conflict. All the parties concerned, especially the U.S, and Russia, should go back to Geneva to try and negotiate peace.

The author is a columnist with China.org.cn. For more information please visit:

http://www.h5a3.com/opinion/zhaojinglun.htm

Opinion articles reflect the views of their authors, not necessarily those of China.org.cn.