There’s been a lot of spec­u­la­tion that Iraq was just the first in a line of net­tle­some prob­lems in the Mid­dle East that neo-cons wanted to “solve.” Israeli Prime Min­is­ter Ariel Sharon said in an inter­view almost a year ago that Iran should be the next tar­get. How­ever, it seems Wash­ing­ton has decided to step up its cam­paign against Syria.

U.S.-led coali­tion troops treat wounded sol­diers after an attack on a Humvee on the main road about 50 miles south of Bagh­dad. The extent of the sol­diers’ wounds was unclear. (Greg Baker — AP) Click to enlargeLast week­end, “to cau­tion Israel’s ene­mies at a time of height­ened ten­sions in the region and con­cern over Iran’s alleged ambi­tions,” Wash­ing­ton revealed that Israel now has land-, air– and submarine-based nuclear launch capa­bil­ity. This came just days after Turk­ish law­mak­ers voted to send up to 10,000 troops to Iraq. With the Turks now a dues-paying mem­ber of the “Coali­tion of Will­ing,” this means Syria is effec­tively sur­rounded. Remem­ber that the major fight­ing in Iraq ended with Syr­ian and Amer­i­can forces skir­mish­ing on the bor­der, and now Dam­as­cus is pressed on the north and south by the for­merly neu­tral Turkey and its old enemy Israel. The pres­sure is on Syr­ian Pres­i­dent Bashar al-Asad to cease sup­port for groups such as Hizbal­lah and other groups oper­at­ing out of Dam­as­cus. Asad is fac­ing a dan­ger­ous gam­ble: Is the United States bluff­ing in its deploy­ment of its and its allies’ forces around Syria in an attempt to force behav­ior change? Will a regime change fol­low if Syria’s behav­ior doesn’t alter?
Adding fur­ther to pres­sure is the Syria Account­abil­ity and Lebanese Sov­er­eignty Restora­tion Act of 2003 (HR 1828). It passed the House this week, and par­tic­u­lar note should be paid to Sec­tion 4 — State­ment of Prin­ci­ples:

1. Syria will be held respon­si­ble for attacks com­mit­ted by Hizbal­lah and other ter­ror­ist groups with offices, train­ing camps, or other facil­i­ties in Syria, or bases in areas of Lebanon occu­pied by Syria;
2. the United States shall impede Syria’s abil­ity to sup­port acts of inter­na­tional ter­ror­ism and efforts to develop or acquire weapons of mass destruction;
3. the Sec­re­tary of State will con­tinue to list Syria as a state spon­sor of ter­ror­ism until Syria ends its sup­port for ter­ror­ism, includ­ing its sup­port of Hizbal­lah and other ter­ror­ist groups in Lebanon and its host­ing of ter­ror­ist groups in Dam­as­cus, and comes into full com­pli­ance with United States law relat­ing to ter­ror­ism and United Nations Secu­rity Coun­cil Res­o­lu­tion 1373 (Sep­tem­ber 28, 2001);
4. efforts against Hizbal­lah will be expanded given the recog­ni­tion that Hizbal­lah is equally or more capa­ble than al Qa’ida;
5. the full restora­tion of Lebanon’s sov­er­eignty, polit­i­cal inde­pen­dence, and ter­ri­to­r­ial integrity is in the national secu­rity inter­est of the United States;
6. Syria is in vio­la­tion of United Nations Secu­rity Coun­cil Res­o­lu­tion 520 (Sep­tem­ber 17, 1982) through its con­tin­ued occu­pa­tion of Lebanese ter­ri­tory and its encroach­ment upon Lebanon’s polit­i­cal independence;
7. Syria’s oblig­a­tion to with­draw from Lebanon is not con­di­tioned upon progress in the Israeli-Syrian or Israeli-Lebanese peace process but derives from Syria’s oblig­a­tion under Secu­rity Coun­cil Res­o­lu­tion 520;
8. Syria’s acqui­si­tion of weapons of mass destruc­tion and bal­lis­tic mis­sile pro­grams threaten the secu­rity of the Mid­dle East and the national secu­rity inter­ests of the United States;
9. Syria will be held account­able for any harm to Coali­tion armed forces or to any United States cit­i­zen in Iraq due to its facil­i­ta­tion of ter­ror­ist activ­i­ties and its ship­ments of mil­i­tary sup­plies to Iraq; and
10. the United States will not pro­vide any assis­tance to Syria and will oppose mul­ti­lat­eral assis­tance for Syria until Syria ends all sup­port for ter­ror­ism, with­draws its armed forces from Lebanon, and halts the devel­op­ment and deploy­ment of weapons of mass destruc­tion and medium– and long-range surface-to-surface bal­lis­tic missiles.

Note that many of these prin­ci­ples are almost iden­ti­cal to those expressed against Iraq, par­tic­u­larly the vio­la­tion of United Nations Secu­rity Coun­cil res­o­lu­tions, the weapons of mass destruc­tion and its ties to ter­ror­ism — in this case Hizbal­lah, which has been pro­moted to Al Qa’ida rank in evil. Even the “axis of evil” rhetoric has been heated up, as this state­ment from the office of House Major­ity Leader Tom DeLay, R-Texas, illus­trates:

Syria is a gov­ern­ment at war with the val­ues of the civ­i­lized world and a vio­lent threat to free nations and free men every­where. We’ll send a clear mes­sage to Pres­i­dent Asad and his fel­low trav­el­ers along the axis of evil: The United States will not tol­er­ate ter­ror­ism, its per­pe­tra­tors, or its spon­sors. And our warn­ings are not to be ignored. (Empha­sis added — Ed.)

Strat​for​.com notes that the cap­ture of Bagh­dad shocked the Arab world, and the United States seized the psy­cho­log­i­cal ini­tia­tive with the city’s fall. The United States went from being per­ceived as a hated but impo­tent power to a hated but feared one. Since the fall of Bagh­dad, how­ever, the per­cep­tion that the United States is bogged down by gueril­las has taken hold and much of the ini­tia­tive has been lost. The pas­sage of HR 1828 and the coa­lesc­ing of a regional coali­tion against Syria is required if the United States’ is to regain its foot­ing and momen­tum. If pres­sure by Wash­ing­ton works, then Syria will reduce sup­port to ter­ror groups tar­get­ing Israel and halt the flow of fight­ers into Iraq. If it doesn’t, the United States will need to deal with Syria by force.
Related link: Why Iraq?