The principal fear with Iran has been that the leaders of the Islamic Republic in Tehran, being Shiites, would intervene to assist the Iraqi Shiites, long oppressed under Saddam Hussein. In fact, Iran has sent a large contingent of intelligence agents across its long border into Iraq. When it appeared as if the Shiite firebrand, Sadr, was prepared to do battle with the American military, Iranian intervention against the United States seemed likely. However, Sadr backed down, and the cooler judgment of Ayatollah Sistani prevailed.

Why fight with the Americans, Sistani and his followers reasoned. After all, the United States is losing lives and spending a fortune to hand control of the Iraqi government to the Shiites in the new democratic state, if it emerges. Following this same logic, the Iranians have for the most part remained on the sidelines.

Not so for Syria. The government in Damascus has been a long time ally of Saddam Hussein. This relationship was developed under Hafez Assad, while he lived. Syrian banks laundered money, illegally diverted by Saddam from the U.N. oil for food program.

The current ruler, his son, has consistently embraced daddy’s belligerent, obstructive policies, including support for terrorists throughout the Middle East. As a result, of its designation as a sponsor of terrorism, the United States has for several years imposed economic sanctions on Syria.

Obviously, these sanctions haven’t had enough bite to influence behavior in Damascus. From the day the war against Saddam Hussein was launched, Syria has provided a haven for the Sunni thugs who ran Saddam Hussein’s brutal regime. These include many of Saddam’s relatives as well as some of his top officials. Not only key Iraqi military officials, but some of Saddam’s arms were slipped across the porous border to their new home in Syria.

Now those Iraqis who fled to Syria have established a structure to coordinate the flow of money, weapons and combatants inside Iraq. American intelligence analysts consistently reach the same conclusion. The so-called insurgents, now primarily Sunnis, are receiving enormous financial aid and logistical support from Iraqis in Syria.

These facts are beyond dispute. We are even making them public. For example, General George W. Casey, Jr., the ranking American commander in Iraq, has stated that the United States has good information that some senior former officials of Saddam’s government have established a high command that is “operating out of Syria with impunity and providing direction and financing for the insurgency in Iraq.”

What is inexplicable is that the United States has not taken strong punitive action against Syria and the network of Saddam’s pals in Syria who are responsible for American casualties. To date, our response has been confined to quiet protests by Armitage and other State Department officials to the Syrian government. These are a joke. No matter what evidence we show the Syrians, they respond by asking for more specific information while laughing behind our back. It is humiliating to have a third rate power continue to play this cat and mouse game with the United States.

Now there is a new proposal floating around Washington “to get tough” with Syria in an effort to have Damascus roll up the Iraqi network. The idea being considered is that the U.S. Treasury Department should take action to isolate the Syrian banking system. This hardly seems adequate. We have an immediate problem, and banking regulations won’t help one bit.

What we have to do is to stop the insurgency by cutting it off at its roots. Some in the Pentagon propose to do that by pinpoint bombing in Syria. This has provoked another one of those battles between hawks and doves which have characterized this administration.

Those at State claim that we’ll lose our respect in the Arab world if we launch a punitive military strike on Syria. The diplomats in Foggy Bottom have it wrong by a hundred eighty degrees. We will only gain respect on the Arab street if we display the force which is plainly required by the reprehensible action of Saddam’s pals and their Syrian hosts.

We toppled Saddam. Losing round two of the war we won would be unfortunate for the United States, the Middle East and the world order.