I've been wondering about this for a while...

For quite some time, I've been wondering just where Bush & Co. were going to turn their gaze next in the Middle East.

I've found myself alternating between Iran and Syria for quite some time.

Symbolically and strategically, Iran is a far more important target than Syria. It forms a bridge between Iraq and Afghanistan - which would give the US effective control over a sizable portion of the historic 'Silk Highway'. Also, the United States continues to nurse a grudge for the very public bruising it took in 1979 at the hands of Iranian student militants.

Conversely, Syria has always struck me as a more likely target for a couple of reasons. First, if the US were to "democratize" Syria, they do their long time allies in Israel an enormous favour. Syrian influence in Lebanon has provided a fertile ground under which the various Palestinian resistance groups have been able to flourish.

From Israel's perspective, Syria is important for another reason - fresh water. The Euphrates river flows through Syria. A pro-Washington government in Syria would also be (by definition) pro-Israel (at least publicly), and would therefore be quite amenable to selling water from the Euphrates watershed into Israel - thus securing Israel's fresh water supply (which is otherwise rather limited, and largely sourced in Arab countries that are nominally indifferent or outright hostile to Israel.

At his presentation to the EU, Bush is busy rattling his sabres towards Syria - rather loudly. Where Washington is concerned, Syria is a much "easier" target than Iran. Since the end of the Iran/Iraq war, Iran has kept pretty much to itself, and few in the area (except Israel) would call Iran a threat. Second, unlike Syria, Iran has been relatively prosperous economically, meaning that they have had monies to invest in defense infrastructure. The complex geography further complicates the strategic analysis. Syria, on the other hand, is nowhere near as nasty to control. The fact that Syria maintains an occupation force in Lebanon makes it easier to justify invasion - after all they are standing in the way of allowing the Lebanese people the right of "self-determination".

Unlike Iran, the United States can directly involve Israel's well-funded and equipped military in conquest over Syria. This means that the US can get "out" of Syria fairly easily (although handing the keys to Israel may not sit so well with the citizens of that land...), theoretically freeing up its troops for other conquests.

My guess is that Washington is setting up a long-term play. They probably think they can get in and out of Syria by the time 2008 rolls around. If they pull this off, they will then turn around and go after Iran nearer to the end of Bush's current term. No matter how this plays on the public stage in the US, the Republican party wins. A war in Iran will be extremely difficult to prosecute effectively, thus committing the subsequent administration(s) to pursuing it. (not unlike the debacle that was Vietnam) If a Democrat succeeds Bush, they will be stuck, because pulling out of Iran abruptly would be played as "weakness" at home; and if a Republican succeeds Bush, well, the status quo of "War Presidents" will continue - in either case, the Republicans win politically.