Syria is looking more and more like Bush’s next target
About seven months before the invasion of Iraq began, Slate’s William Saletan raised an interesting point about Tom DeLay’s arguments in favor of a war with Iraq: they apply equally well to Syria.
From state sponsorship of terrorism, to probable possession of weapons of mass destruction, to threatening Israel, Saletan noted that for every reason the U.S. had come up with for attacking Iraq, we had just as many reasons to go after Syria.
And now with the war in Iraq going well, it looks like the Bush administration is indeed shifting its attention in Syria’s direction.
Today, Secretary of State Colin Powell followed up on weeks of increasingly aggressive U.S. posturing against Syria with warnings to the Middle Eastern country that the administration is weighing its options and we’re not ruling anything out.
“With respect to Syria, of course we will examine possible measures of a diplomatic, economic or other nature as we move forward,” Powell said today. “In light of this new environment [Syria] should review their actions and their behavior, not only with respect to who gets haven in Syria and weapons of mass destruction but especially the support of terrorist activity.”
As the Washington Post noted this afternoon, White House Press Secretary Ari Fleischer took the rhetoric a couple of steps further in his morning briefing, reading from a CIA report that said Syria has stockpiles of sarin nerve gas, that it was “trying to develop more toxic and persistent nerve elements,” and that it was “highly probable” that Syria was pursuing a biological weapons program.
When asked by White House reporters about whether the administration was “sending a message” with antagonistic remarks, Fleischer said, “People have to realize there are acceptable standards of behavior that world and certainly the free Iraqi people hope will be followed by its neighbors, including Syria, and part of that is not to harbor Iraqi leaders. Syria needs to cooperate and not harbor Iraqi leaders.” Fleischer was also asked about why the administration would use aggressive rhetoric toward Syria just as things in the Middle East were beginning to settle down. “Do you think the White House and President Bush should look the other way at the fact that Syria is taking in Iraqi leaders?” Fleischer responded.
Today’s remarks are the latest developments in the deteriorating relations between the U.S. and Syria. As recently as yesterday, President Bush insisted that Syria has chemical weapons and has harbored fleeing Iraqi officials seeking to hide from U.S. forces. When asked by a reporter if he’s considering a military attack on Syria, Bush didn’t exactly say no.
“Each situation will require a different response,” Bush said. “First things first. We’re here in Iraq now.”
Bush’s remarks were reiterated by some of the administration’s most ardent hawks. Donald Rumsfeld, on yesterday’s Meet the Press, insisted “there’s no question” that Syria has been taking in “busloads” of Iraqi officials from Hussein’s government. Paul Wolfowitz, the Deputy Secretary of Defense, has said that unless Syria quickly changes its ways, “then we need to think about what our policy is with respect to a country that harbors terrorists or harbors war criminals or was in recent times shipping things to Iraq.”
The “shipping things to Iraq” point refers to Rumsfeld and Powell’s assertions that Syrian officials were assisting Iraq after our invasion had begun by secretly giving Hussein’s government military supplies and materials, which if true, would constitute an “aggressive act” against the United States, according to Rumsfeld.
I don’t want to sound overdramatic, but the White House isn’t even being subtle about its intentions. Another war in the Middle East is more than a just a remote possibility; it almost appears likely. As Sen. Joe Biden (D-Del.) put it yesterday, Syria is in the administration’s “crosshairs.”
This also ties in well with Josh Marshall’s excellent piece in this month’s Washington Monthly. As I’ve mentioned before, Marshall makes clear in his article that the administration “sees the invasion [of Iraq] as only the first move in a wider effort to reorder the power structure of the entire Middle East.”
“In short, the administration is trying to roll the table — to use U.S. military force, or the threat of it, to reform or topple virtually every regime in the region, from foes like Syria to friends like Egypt, on the theory that it is the undemocratic nature of these regimes that ultimately breeds terrorism,” Marshall explained.
The current war may be winding up, but another war may be right around the corner.