Who's next? Syria, but not necessarily militarily. On the one hand we have troops already in theater; on the other they are not finished in Iraq and there is no need to overextend them. Their efforts to date have been simply incredible, but it has cost them. Syria is now isolated in terms of oil, water, political influence, and funding. We need to ensure that the flotsam from Iraq that has collected there stays there.
If we were to learn, for example, that Syria, had taken possession of Iraqi weapons of mass destruction, I’m quite sure that we would have to respond to that. It would be an act of such foolishness on Syria's part that it would raise the question of whether Syria could be reasoned with.
That statement was for Syria's benefit. I personally believe that they have done just that in anticipation of its being moved back once the coast was clear and Blix was back in the saddle. That will not happen now, and Assad is stuck. If it's close to the border, the most likely case, then we may have to turn a blind eye on its being dumped back on the other side. That would be in the interest of allowing Assad to save face, but might be the most prudent thing on everyone's part, especially Assad. Because he knows now that we will take action and nothing he stirs up in the UN will stop it. That is a sea change.
I suspect Chirac's perfidy may well go away when his administration is sent packing, which will happen sooner than many think, IMHO. The Axis of Fools is in no position economically or militarily to oppose the U.S. strategically, and coercing the other nations in the EU to support and especially to fund a French-led effort to do so is now a non-starter. This does not minimize the enormity of the power play he attempted here and calls into serious question whether his administration can be dealt with politically at all. Chirac has serious delusions of grandeur and under other circumstances might have been really dangerous. He will not change.
Saudi Arabia, too is stuck. The old Arab habit of playing Peter off against Paul won't work in a unipolar geopolicital world, and their support for violent, hateful, and irrational Arab nationalism is too much of a pillar of the ascendancy of the house of Saud to be turned off at this point without seriously destabilizing that country. Some have suggested that one of Bush's objectives in Iraq was providing for a secure oil supply in case things do blow up in Saudi Arabia. I do not think that was a principal objective myself, but it is certainly a strong secondary one.
But even our allies are in need of reassurance that this wasn't the goad that finally sent the elephant over the edge into insanity. What needs to be emphasized is that it took 12 years to reach this pass and that we are neither inclined as a people nor impelled by immediacy to continue a military campaign of domination. That always should be, and is, a last resort. The problem is for the protected nations - Germany - and for the protected people - the passionately antiwar left - this has become an impossible option. Where it is so the violent and fanatical will only be encouraged, safe in the assurance that they can shoot, and bomb, and kill with only words for a reply.
One final thought on the EU. I said at the beginning of this and repeat now, this is the point in history where Great Britain will lead all of Europe away from the ossified, mid-20th-century mold in which France, Belgium, and Germany were attempting to recreate it. Britain has by far the freshest political thought, most robust economy, and finest military in that area, and a host of nations newly freed from Soviet dominance have shown themselves quite unwilling to take up yoke and harness for Brussels. If there is a future for the European Union at all it is there.