Damascus sighted: where's the next distraction war? (Up front: news and opinion from independent minds).

It didn't take long at all, did it? Within hours of seeing footage of former Iraqi president Saddam Hussein's smiling, hand-waving statue falling from its perch above the streets of Baghdad, U.S. president George W. Bush's administration was already issuing strong words to the governments of Iran, North Korea, and Syria. What exactly did Undersecretary of State for Arms Control and International Security John R. Bolton mean when he advised these countries to "draw the appropriate lesson" from Iraq?

Perhaps the implication here is that the Bush administration's war on Iraq was, in fact, something more than the campaign for oil that it was criticized to be. Perhaps the administration was merely flexing its muscle, reiterating the president's early idea that any country that cooperates with terrorists would itself be viewed as terrorist (a policy that has yet to be applied to Pakistan).

Maybe this is just the administration's way of proving that the United States really does have the best interests of the world at heart, with the implication that the United States might attack someone else, validating its policy in Iraq. Therefore, the United States wouldn't actually attack Iran, North Korea, or Syria. The administration only wants to get rid of the weapons. This is about world security. This is not about oil. Really.

Still, to continually mention other nations' policies--with the reconstruction of Iraq stumbling its way forward--eerily echoes the way Iraq was targeted so quickly after operations in Afghanistan waned and the ultimately unimpressive reconstruction process began. It seemed the Taliban had scarcely been driven from their seats when the word on the street was Iraq.

It took months of propaganda, pressuring, and posturing, but Bush and the boys finally got their war, even if it meant a pre-emptive strike. Iran, North Korea, and Syria probably have every right to be nervous right now. At this point, war fever is no longer at its zenith. The U.S. war on Iraq has been over long enough, and domestic concerns are topping the news again. But the reconstruction effort in Iraq doesn't seem as easy to ignore as the one in Afghanistan. This time, it seems, the United States will have to pay up.

The rhetoric from Washington has been frightening nonetheless. The target of the assaults has varied but the language has been consistently stem. At first, the primary candidate for another attack seemed to be Syria. Much was made of Syria's alleged support for the Iraqi regime, including talk of shipments of deadly night vision goggles. With a Ba'ath Party government, a permanent spot on the U.S. State Department's list of nations that sponsor terrorism, and perceived refuge of Iraqi regime leaders, Syria appeared to be positioned firmly in Washington's crosshairs. The situation since has been back and forth. Secretary of State Colin Powell went to Damascus saying progress was being made, then, upon his return home, threatened "consequences" if Syria didn't fall into line.

Meanwhile, the escalating tensions in Pyongyang and Tehran have sounded further alarm bells. Iran's Ayatollah Ali Khamenei has accused the United States of preparing for an invasion of Iran, while North Korea pulled out of its antinuclear agreement with South Korea and then blamed Washington for the decision. North Korea and Iran seemed unlikely targets for direct military action a few months ago, but the United States refuses to rule out this possibility either nation.

Still, one of the lessons of recent U.S. foreign policy is that diplomacy is much more appealing when nuclear weapons are involved. North Korea figured this out by launching into full-scale isolationism and threatening the United States with a long-range missile armed with a nuclear warhead. Iran now seems to have taken that lesson seriously well, reinstating its nuclear program. The fear now is that the Bush administration will want to attack a country whose weapons of mass destruction are more likely in place rather than the easiest available target, as was Iraq this time around.

The war hawks still seem to be craving a true "victory" in the war on terrorism. Afghanistan was a bust without the capture of Osama bin Laden, and the reconstruction effort has been an embarrassment. The war on Iraq was mired in doubt and global antiwar protests before it started. Since its finish, it has seen renewed opposition as U.S. forces seem incapable of bringing any kind of normalcy to the lives of the Iraqi people.

Bush's huge wave of popular support now sits at a breaking point. He remains in the untouchable position of a commander in chief presiding over a victory. But the election is nearly a year and a half away, and war fever did little to help the former President George Bush in 1992. With a stagnant domestic economy, rising unemployment, and the long road ahead in Iraq's rebuilding that seems longer every day, a slow slide in the polls for Bush seems inevitable. His administration may just decide that another distraction is needed, leaving Damascus, Pyongyang, and Tehran wondering, "Who's next?"

Nick Fox is a graduate of the journalism program at Northern Arizona University at Flagstaff. He works as a freelance journalist in Asheville, North Carolina.