The world is particularly alarmed by Washington's attempt to brand Syria as both a "terrorist state" and a country having weapons of mass destruction because the Bush administration has used the very nexus between the terror and such weapons to rationalize its preemptive strike doctrine.

United Nations Secretary General Kofi Annan on Monday expressed concern that "recent statements directed at Syria should not contribute to a wider destabilization in a region already affected heavily by the war in Iraq."

Some other countries, including Britain, Russia and France, also voiced their concerns over Washington's escalating rhetoric against Damascus, and called for US restraint.

The saber-rattling, which began with a "solo" by Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and reached a climax over the past two days in a "chorus" by the administration, was a clear shot across the bow designed to force Syria to change course and did not indicate immediate US military actions against the neighbor of Iraq, analysts said.

As neighbors and Arab countries, Syria and Iraq had shared similar concerns over Washington's long-term strategic attempt on Iraq and the region as a whole. And despite differences and past grievances, Damascus and Baghdad had cultivated a closer relationship in recent years.

Being the sole Arab nation in the 15-member UN Security Council, Syria did nothing to hold back its sympathy and support for Iraq, and has been lobbying strongly against the war both before and after its outbreak.

More recently, the Bush administration, especially the Pentagon, has repeatedly accused Syria of providing military equipment to Iraq, harboring fleeing Iraqi officials and their family members, and even hiding Baghdad's alleged weapons of mass destruction.

Wary of what it perceives as hostile Syrian policies, Washington decided to mount pressure on Damascus by flexing its muscles, and at a press briefing on Monday, White House spokesman Ari Fleischer intentionally refused to discount the possibility of military actions.

War against Syria, however, makes no sense, analysts said. "The United States has its hands full in Iraq. More important, Washington will only live up to the worst expectations of the Arab world if it now adopts a belligerent military approach to every nation in the region that it dislikes," the New York Times warned in an editorial published on Tuesday.

Syria, despite its proximity to Iraq, is not a pariah which can be easily taken on by the United States. Unlike Iraq, which has been isolated and demonized by Washington, Syria has been a relatively influential country in the region with an important role in the Middle East peace process.

Syria does not boast an oil reserve like Iraq, which is second only to Saudi Arabia, making it a less desirable target for Washington. Moreover, it would be very difficult to spare Israel, Syria's neighboring country, if any conflict flared up between the United States and Syria.

All these factors, combined with domestic and international sentiments, will force the White House to think twice before committing US forces to a war with Syria, analysts believe.

Aware that it may have overplayed a tough hand, the Bush administration on Tuesday seemed to tone down its rhetoric towards Syria by saying it had no "war plan" to attack, despite its grievances with Damascus.

"There is no list, there is no war plan right now to go attack someone else, either for the purpose of over-throwing their leadership or for the purpose of imposing democratic values," US Secretary of State Colin Powell told reporters at the Foreign Press Center in downtown Washington on Tuesday.

"We are trying to scare them for the moment," one US official said, in hope that "Syria will change its behavior."

(Xinhua News Agency April 16, 2003)