The United States has turned its attention to Syria after securing military control over Iraq. In doing so it is using its victory as an exemplary warning to other states in the region - and preparing the ground for a negotiation on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.
A series of US warnings to Damascus about harbouring political fugitives from Saddam Hussein's Iraq, tolerating an arms trade with it, developing weapons of mass destruction and encouraging terrorism has raised fears of prospective military action against Syria. While that is discounted, there will be increasing pressure on its government to cooperate with US plans to reorder the region. This is a signal of what is to come and a sharp reminder that a wider regional agenda underlies Washington's Iraq campaign.
The Syrians have vehemently denied these charges. Their relations with the Saddam Hussein regime have always been uneasy, despite some political similarities, notably the two countries' common adherence to secular Ba'ath nationalism. A large population of Iraqi refugees in eastern Syria, and a relatively open border, could have given cover to arms traders or political contacts. But it is stretching credibility to believe the Syrian government would knowingly give sanction to leading figures from the vanquished regime.
Allegations about Syria developing weapons of mass destruction must be backed up by evidence and validated by the United Nations. And Syria's alleged sponsorship of terrorism must be seen in the light of the hundreds of thousands of Palestinian refugees in camps there, its domination of Lebanon, its sponsorship of the Palestinian resistance movement Hezbollah and its relentless campaign to secure the return of the Golan Heights, occupied by Israel since 1967.
Thus Syria's role is deeply bound up with the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. That gives it a real obligation to play its hand responsibly. But its government also has to take fully into account the new political balance of forces following the Anglo-American victory in Iraq. The Bush administration has had a constant ideological sympathy with Mr Ariel Sharon's government in Israel, which has been strengthened by the outcome of the war. While Mr Bush has pledged to devote as much attention to an Israeli-Palestinian peace agreement as Mr Tony Blair has to Northern Ireland, this would involve a radical change of emphasis and policy towards Israel - a readiness to put pressure on it to make major concessions for peace. This looks unlikely in the light of the US presidential election next year, in which Mr Bush will rely on Jewish and Christian fundamentalist votes to win another term.
Pressure for a peace agreement will have to come from the other members of the "quartet" involved in drawing up a road map for an Israeli-Palestinian settlement - the European Union, Russia and the United Nations. How they handle this question, including Syria's role, will be crucial in shaping the Middle East, by moderating US influence there after the Iraq war.