What are the differences between the two?

Now is the time for action.
The action for time is now.
For the 2 sentences above, they of course express the same basic meaning. But I was wondering whether there are any subtle differences induced by the different ordering.

<<For the 2 sentences above, they of course express the same basic meaning.>>

No, the second sentence is completely nonsensical.

For the second sentence, I think you mean, "The time for action is now."

Oh, okay. If you meant, "The time for action is now," then that sentence is fine.

yeah the second sentence i mean "The time for action is now"

Now is the time for action.
The time for action is now

>>Now is the time for action.
The time for action is now<<

Yeah, they mean the same thing. But, I suppose, if you were looking for subtle difference one might be inclined to use the second one for more gravitas.

Like with "now is the time for action," the main focus would be on now, kind of making the rest of the sentence irrelevant. Like if you were storming the beach, and someone were to yell out "now is the time for action," you'd be heading off before he finished his sentence. "Now" was the point. Where as with, "the time for action is now," the main focus is on time. It'd be more like the general sitting back at headquarters, and finally hearing some barrier had finally been breached and the enemy was obviously weakened, allowing the proper stage for the final attack plan to commence. He might go with, "the time for action is now," between the two it adds more weight to what he is saying, and not meaning for everyone to take off right then and there. There'd still be preparations to make.