The feature was explicitly presented as syntactic sugar. Your counterargument boils down to "we shouldn't do this because it's just syntactic sugar". By this argument we should remove most of the syntactic sugar from Rust, including for loops.
Clearly there is such a thing as too much syntactic sugar (as one of my professors put it, "syntactic sugar causes semantic cancer"), but at the same time also clearly some syntactic sugar is worth having. To evaluate this proposal one has to judge its benefits against its downsides; just saying "we shouldn't have any syntactic sugar" doesn't really make progress on that evaluation.