Er... What's this about threatening Syria?

I've covered this before. The Neocon Cabal planned as least as far back at 1997 to reshape the Middle East, starting with toppling Iraq, and then moving on to either Iran or Syria.

There's been an ongoing nuclear standoff between the U.S., Europe and Iran for over a year. Iran is supposedly working to build breeder nuclear reactors, one of the side effects of this being weapons-grade plutonium. Europe has been acting to reach a negotiated settlement, but the Bush Administration is playing hardball and repeatedly threatening Iran. So it's been clear Iran was the chosen target of the next domino to fall.

But...

Bush's tipping point with Syria (Christian Science Monitor, October 24, 2005)

This details moves that can only be interpreted as putting heat on Syria. Okay, so which of the two is it? Because clearly the Neocon's have remained in power, and they're about to con us into another war.

The US wants the UN Security Council to hold Syria "accountable" for its role in killing a top Lebanese leader.

Okay, a couple months ago a Lebanese leader was assassinated, and Syria has been fingered as the culprit. And, as the article goes on to say, some of the forces fighting the U.S. occupation of Iraq are based in Syria.

A UN report last week implicated high-level Syrian officials in the bombing of former Lebanese Prime Minister Rafik Hariri on Feb. 14. The report found the assassination "could not have ... [occurred] without the approval of top-ranked security officials and could not have been further organized without the collusion of their counterparts in the Lebanese security services."

The Security Council meets Tuesday to discuss what action to take. For the Bush administration, the options are difficult.

The US is militarily exhausted by Iraq and Afghanistan, and can hardly pick a fight with Syria's president, Bashar Assad. Nor can it politically afford right now to further erode America's international reputation by operating outside the UN Security Council.

The assassination closely followed Syria's withrawal from Lebanon after occupying the country for 20 years. Clearly Syria might have wanted to attempt to regain/maintain some control over the country, even as they are not actively occupying the country.

And, yes, the options are difficult. Despite the Iraq war being highly illegal, it has drained the country's will to fight, and totally drained away Bush's approval rating.