In the US-led war against the Taleban in Afghanistan, most of the world agreed that President George Bush was justified in overthrowing it. In his war against Iraq, views have been more divided; even so, despite convictions that Iraq was chosen because it is oil-rich, Arab and a convenient target, there were many who supported the toppling of an oppressive and potentially deadly regime. Even the French and Russians said they wanted the US to win once the war began.

But Syria is a far cry from Iraq and if George W. Bush continues with his threats against it, he will find that he has snatched defeat and humiliation from the jaws of victory. The grudging acceptance of what the US has achieved in Baghdad will vanish. No one, not even his most devoted international allies and supporters, is going to back action against Damascus.

As for the ridiculous allegation that the Syrians are developing chemical weapons of mass destruction, no one is about to fall again for such a cheap propaganda ploy. “Weapons of mass destruction” has become the catch-all offense to justify targeting any government that the hawks in the Bush administration dislike. But surely, in such circumstances, the weapons of mass destruction should at least be found.

Who might be next? Will it be Havana with its weapons of mass destruction? Will it be Khartoum with its weapons of mass destruction? Meanwhile, those who actually have them or are developing them — such as the Israelis and the North Koreans — are treated very differently.

Flush with victory in Iraq, Bush is on a high, though seeming to require yet another military fix to give his presidency meaning and justification. But the opposite is happening. Washington’s powers of reason, its ability to argue its case using logic and persuasion, are seen to have been displaced by petulant fury, all because a foreign government will not do as it is told.

Many countries other than Syria opposed the war against Iraq. Does Bush plan to attack them? He accuses Damascus of providing arms to Iraq. Belarus and Ukraine provided arms to Iraq during the embargo; will he invade them? Of course not. He accuses Damascus of providing sanctuary to members of Saddam’s regime; what is wrong with that? Sanctuary is an age-old institution. And if Russia were to give some of the regime sanctuary, would he be as threatening?

Only Syria is targeted. For Arabs and Muslims, it seems proof, coming after Afghanistan and Iraq, that he is hell-bent on an anti-Arab, anti-Muslim crusade. It looks like the payoff to Israel, to which Syria has been implacably and powerfully opposed. The extraordinary comment on Monday by US National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice seems to confirm it: “It’s time to sign on to a different kind of Middle East”. A Middle East, no doubt, where everyone does what they are told by Washington, with Israel sitting at its right hand to advise and to direct.

No way. The Middle East will not be remade by the US in accordance with its diktats.

Bush talks about a road map to Middle East peace. He can forget it if he hopes to beat the Arabs into obedience. Peace can only be achieved through cooperation and Bush seems intent on intimidation.