It's much too eerie a reminder of World War I to ignore. The assassination of Lebanon's pro-Western and controversial former Prime Minister, Rafik al-Hariri, by a strategically planned explosion of his vehicle has surmounted in turmoil throughout Lebanon and the Middle East. And the surprising alliance between the secular Syrian government and theocratic Iran does not do much to stabilize the situation. The prospects of all-out war in the region are not impeccable, but now more then ever it seems that the world is anticipating a reaction to the pot brewing in the Middle East.

The United States responded quickly to condemn the assassination of Hariri and claim that Syria was directly responsibe for the attack. Not surprisingly, we have also pulled the American ambassador from Damascus in a gesture that historically has been a prelude to war. Since January, we have seen Washington give mounting criticism of Bashar al-Asad's regime, seeming to express a willingness to engage forces in Syria if the situation escalates even further. Now with Lebanon's prominent proponent of liberal capitalism dead, its likely Syria's reactionary government, regardless of its connection to the group that claimed responsibility for the attack, will be used as a scapegoat to further the American agenda in the Middle East.

It is surprising that the United States did not immediately lay blame on the Lebanese organization Hizbullah which has been backed by Iran for years. The State department had toyed this week with putting the organization amongst others on a list of "terrorist organizations" but has not formally announced it believed it was responsible for the assassination of Hariri. Perhaps, it's a strategic choice of which country it should deal with first — if Iran is provoked, perhaps that will amount to a war we cannot handle at the present time.

However, if Syria is attacked on the sole basis of our discontent with its regime and our presumption that they were directly involved in this assassination, then conceivably, a few months from today, we could be in the same predicament in Syria as we are in Iraq. If we engage in war, again, founded on beliefs and not proven essentials, even the most powerful media machine cannot conceal our true intentions.

However, Syria's war is not for oil — perhaps for terror, perhaps to promote democracy, but more so it seems a chance for domination.

This article appeared in The Marquette Tribune on Feb. 22 2005.