Bush wanted Israel to invade Syria.

As I argued here I have long thought that the US were hoping to expand the conflict in Lebanon into Syria, and therefore into Iran, as they are well aware that Iran and Syria have a protection pact and an attack on one would force the intervention of the other.

Thanks to Anything They Say I have now come across further evidence that the neo-cons were indeed goading Israel to attack Syria.

The White House, and in particular White House advisors who belong to the neoconservative movement, allegedly encouraged Israel to attack Syria as an expansion of its action against Hizbullah, in Lebanon. The progressive opinion and news site ConsortiumNews.com reported Monday that Israeli sources say Israel's "leadership balked at the scheme."

George W. Bush and his neoconservative advisers saw the conflict between Israel and Hezbollah as an opportunity to expand the conflict into Syria and possibly achieve a long-sought "regime change" in Damascus, but Israel's leadership balked at the scheme, according to Israeli sources.

One Israeli source said Bush's interest in spreading the war to Syria was considered "nuts" by some senior Israeli officials.

It now appears quite clear that the Israelis and the US are working in tandem with the objective being the downfall of the Iranian government with, what they hope will be a collapse in the strength of Hamas and Hizbullah, leaving the Israelis free to dictate their final terms for the state of Palestine's borders.

"The Iranian threat is not only a threat to Israel, it is a threat to the stability of the Middle East and the entire world," Olmert said. "The international community cannot tolerate a situation where a regime with a radical ideology and a long tradition of irresponsible conduct becomes a nuclear weapons state."

Olmert also said he was prepared to give the Palestinians some time to accept Israel's conditions for renewed negotiations on West Bank borders, but -- if Palestinian officials didn't comply -- Israel was prepared to act unilaterally.

The prime minister said Israel would "remove most of the [West Bank] settlements which are not part of the major Israeli population centers in Judea and Samaria. The settlements within the population centers would remain under Israeli control and become part of the state of Israel, as part of the final status agreement."

In other words, Israel would annex some of the most desirable parts of the West Bank regardless of Palestinian objections. That meant the Israelis would need to soften up Hamas, the Islamic militants who won the last Palestinian elections, and their supporters in the Islamic world -- especially Hezbollah, Syria and Iran.

This plan has obviously come apart thanks to the strength of Hizbullah in ejecting the IDF from southern Lebanon. The Israelis, as I spoke of this morning, are now trying to do all they can to undo the damage they have done to their reputation as a fighting force.

For many years now, fear of the Israeli war machine has kept the Arab world at bay. All that has been undermined by the sight of the IDF unable to operate three miles inside the Lebanese border. It is this new vulnerability becoming obvious that has led people like Shimon Peres to now talk of this being, "a war for our very survival". He's not being flippant when he says that.

Olmert - egged on by Bush and the neo-con loons - has made Israel vulnerable in a way that was unthinkable before Olmert launched his ill judged attack on the Lebanese.

Ghayth Amanazi sums it up very well in today's Independent:

Not one of those (Israeli) leaders ever had the honesty to tell their people, as they hauled them from one "victorious" war to another, that all these pyrrhic victories can never subdue a people fired with the rage of injustice, who have resolved that the wrong done unto them shall be righted - whatever it takes.

Far more significant will be its lasting impact on the political, psychological and ultimately the military power balance in the area. The effect of the steadfast resistance of Hizbollah fighters to Israel's all-conquering army will be very powerful regardless of the details of the immediate settlement of the Lebanese conflict, which is likely to be as unstable as previous arrangements.

Beyond Lebanon, however, is the feeling that is spreading like wildfire across the entire Arab and Muslim worlds. It is the feeling of empowerment created by the legend of Bint Jbeil and other battlegrounds that have already entered popular folklore.

It is an empowerment that eventually could seal the fate not only of Israel but of those governments of Arab countries who are seen by their people as having, for too long, "sold" them the false idea of Arab impotence in order to hide their own inadequacies and corruption.

Make no mistake, Bush and Olmert are well aware of the ramifications of what they have unleashed. That's why Bush is trying so hard to make the world accept Israel's "victorious" resolution and it's exactly why Olmert is threatening to target civilians if the same resolution is not adopted.

The neo-cons, led by a swaggering President, have placed Israel in more danger than she has faced since Yom Kippur.

I said at the start of this conflict that wars are very easy to start but very difficult to end. However, I never believed when I wrote this that, come the end of the conflict, it would be the Israeli state who feared for it's existence rather than the state of Lebanon.

What this news confirms - without a shadow of a doubt - is that Bush and his cohorts are insane enough to light up the whole Middle East and foolish enough not to foresee the consequences this would have on their policy in Iraq.

Bush should be thankful that the Israeli's saved him from himself by refusing to widen the conflict. This would have been worse than a mistake, it would have been a blunder.

However, I've no doubt in my mind now that this is a blunder that Bush intends to make as soon as he possibly can.

Tags: Olmert, Bush, Blair, Israel, Palestine, Gaza, Hamas, Hizbullah, Lebanon, Syria, Iran, UN resolution,