Ominous signs -- loosening the bonds

The American ambassador to Syria has been recalled "for urgent consultations." The New Sisyphus [a blog by a career foreign service officer] explains the significance:

This development is significant in two respects. First, it is a sign that worsening relations between Syria and the United States have left the "behind-the-scenes" stage and have moved squarely into the "active confrontation" stage. Second, it appears to us that USG believes that Syria was directly involved in the bombing, either as actor or facilitator.

He further explains:

Syria wages war more-or-less openly on the U.S. in Iraq. Syria provides refuge for terrorists and terrorist organizations. Syria is a Ba'athist dictatorship that allows no dissent and no liberty. Syria is a brutal occupying power that has destroyed the sovereignty of Lebanon. Syria's unreasonable stance on Israel has ruined hopes for peace in the region for decades.

Syria has been bucking for full Axis of Evil status for some time now. What we may be witnessing are the first steps of its promotion to full membership.

Wretchard over at the Belmont Club cites Sisyphus and speculates upon the larger meaning of the decision to recall the ambassador.

If as the New Sisyphus argues, Assad has been "gambling for months that he can bleed the U.S. in Iraq at little cost" and that it has been waging "war more-or-less openly on the U.S. in Iraq", the question is what has changed? It is hard to imagine how the assasination of a Lebanese politician could provoke a more drastic response than months of Syrian-supported attacks on US troops in Iraq and harder still to imagine how Washington could have taken the ultimate diplomatic step without implicitly being prepared to go further. Yet it has. Unless Washington is playing a hollow hand, where the conclusion has changed the premises must be re-examined -- the principal one being that America was too hamstrung by Iraq to take anything else on -- not Syria, Iran or North Korea.

The aggressive posture taken by America against North Korea, Iran and now Syria suggests the bonds that held it down in Iraq, if ever they did, may be loosening.

Wretchard also suggests that the outcome of the Iraqi elections ensures that US forces will be playing a much smaller role in maintaining order than they have until now, and that this will free them up for operations against other states in the region.

If these guys are right then Michael Ledeen's apocalyptic vision of the Middle East convulsed by liberation movements might be starting to take form. Let's hope not for all our sakes.