WSJ makes this abundantly clear. First the WSJ informs us that the NATO jihadis have been turning up the heat-
"In a span of weeks, the Islamic State has overrun military bases in Syria's east. In the west, the regime faces a coalition of rebels that threatens the heartland of Mr. Assad's Alawite minority and could alter the course of Syria's multi-sided civil war"
These developments come as President Barack Obama prepares to describe on Wednesday his own plan to defeat the Islamic State, a Sunni-extremist group also known as ISIS or ISIL. Mr. Assad's troubles could complicate the fight against ISIS by worsening a power vacuum that has allowed the Islamist group to thrive in Syria and neighboring Iraq.
Then WSJ lays bare the plan for regime change, but, presented as the gift of a negotiated exit for the democratically elected leader of Syria- As chosen by Syrians
These same conditions, however, have also raised hope that pressure will drive the Assad regime to the negotiating table, tamping down the civil war long enough to concentrate efforts on defeating the Islamic State, a threat to both the regime and Syrian rebels.
Drive the Assad government to the negotiating table- for one reason and one reason only- Regime change
United Nations and Western officials hope to push tentative truce negotiations now under way between the regime and rebels. The idea is to persuade both sides—as well as their regional backers, Iran for the regime; Qatar, Saudi Arabia and Turkey for the rebels—that no one can win the war, these officials said during interviews in Syria and Lebanon.
If the UN and the west are pushing negotiations it will be for minimally putting their terrorists in a position of power. Or pushing the elected government completely out? Sure, I could be mistaken. But the plan to drop bombs on Syria sure reeks of a pressure tactic