If I weren’t so vain, the antics of many of the world’s leaders would have me tearing my hair out. Indeed, some of them shouldn’t be called leaders at all since they are obviously entirely disconnected from the wishes of their own peoples, preferring (or perhaps obliged) instead to follow US diktats.

Here, the Italian Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi immediately springs to mind. He appeared to be one of the most gung-ho and hawkish pro-Bush European heads, yet, lo and behold, he now asserts that he repeatedly tried to talk the American president out of invading Iraq.

His public U-turn is backed up by his deputy Gianfranco Fini, who says, “We tried right up to the end to try and persuade Bush and Blair not to launch an attack”. That said, then why did they participate...and with such obvious enthusiasm?

Some are even holding the Italian secret services responsible for forging the Iraq-Niger yellowcake documents in an attempt to butter-up Washington.

The Italian people certainly had no appetite for war, and now we know that their leaders apparently didn’t agree with it either but Italy went ahead with its support anyway and was a main player.

The question is how was Italy’s arm twisted and, further, is this what is happening now over Syria? Are countries that have no grudge against Damascus being “persuaded” to step up pressure against the government of Bashar Assad against their better judgment?

For example, why is Algeria, which currently has a seat on the UN Security Council going along with the five permanent members ostensibly set on punishing Syria for its alleged involvement with the assassination of Rafik Hariri?

The Algerian government must surely realize that this is the first step on a slippery slope toward America’s intended goal of regime change, which would further destabilize the region.

Syria is generally seen as “a low hanging fruit” — in other words, an easy target, which Middle East specialist Flynt Leverett, a former White House official confirms in the New York Times: “...I think they’ve been moving toward an undeclared policy of regime change, as long as it doesn’t require too much effort by the United States,” he said, adding, “It’s regime change on the cheap”.

Just why does the US want regime change in Syria? One thing’s for certain. The policy has little to do with the tragic demise of the former Lebanese prime minister, whose death is being shamelessly used to whip up public sentiment against Damascus in the same way that trumped up WMD became the casus belli du jour to invade Iraq.

Don’t believe me? Then please Google for “A clean break: A new strategy for securing the realm” and take a long hard look at the evidence yourself.

The damning document was authored by founding neocons, including Richard Perle, David Wurmser and Douglas Feith on behalf of former Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu as far back as 1996. Since, it has become a focal entity of the Bush administration’s doctrine and its authors are all former or current administration bigwigs.

In brief, the paper asks for the destruction of Yasser Arafat and the Palestinian Authority and the toppling of regimes in both Baghdad and Damascus in order to set the scene for the democratization of the Arab world. It also rejects the policy of “land for peace” and holds dear the goal of Israel’s supremacy in the region.

As far back as October 2003, the Staussian ideologue, publisher of the Weekly Standard and Fox News commentator Bill Kristol told members of the American Enterprise Institute of his dismay that the US hadn’t yet moved on from Iraq to rid Syria of Bashar.

So, in light of this doctrinal message put out by members of the Bush administration in order to bolster Israel’s clout, can we honestly be expected to believe that America’s constant anti-Syrian nitpicking has anything to do with “terrorists” crossing over Syria’s border into Iraq or the alleged involvement of Syrian officials in the death of Hariri?

When it comes to Syria’s Iraq border, this is long and porous and Syria has openly admitted it has neither the technology nor the manpower to police the entire stretch. Indeed, it has asked repeatedly for America’s assistance with this task and has received little. It has also asked Britain to supply night goggles, which Downing Street undertook to do before reneging on its promise.

It is certainly true that Syria overstayed its welcome in Lebanon but it is also true that unlike the US-led coalition in Iraq, Syria was invited into that country by the Lebanese government to help quell a civil war. In any event, it has now withdrawn its intelligence apparatus and military, so this is no longer a problem.

Even the report on the UN investigation into Hariri’s assassination signed off by the German prosecutor Detlev Mehlis was far from absolute in its findings and we now know that its main witness against Syrian officials is an embezzler, who recently phoned his brother, saying: “I’ve become a millionaire”. The report asks that Syria continue with its own investigation, which Bashar says he is committed to doing.

But just as the neocon cabal did not want a compliant Saddam Hussein, who did open Iraq’s doors to UN weapons inspectors, albeit belatedly, it does not want a compliant Syrian leader. And, unfortunately, for Syria’s detractors Bashar cannot be accused of “gassing his own people” or of launching a series of wars against his neighbors. Instead, he is a mild-mannered, soft-spoken eye doctor, who has been struggling to reform and modernize his country despite opposition from his father’s old guard and a series of Western criticisms.

Syria’s president needs help not hindrance from the international community and especially from the Arab world. Now that America’s reasons for going to war with Iraq are under the spotlight thanks to the indictment of Cheney aide Lewis “Scooter” Libby, isn’t it time for our leaders to stand up to be counted? Isn’t it about time they represented their own people instead of furthering the agenda of foreign powers? Berlusconi, who shortly comes up for re-election and is now saying his mea culpas may already be wishing he did just that when he had the chance.

Lastly, I would ask those Lebanese, who are miffed at the Syria occupation of their country and the death of a beloved personality to think in terms of forgiveness and reconciliation. Even those who cannot find a soft place in their hearts toward Damascus should remember this.

Any destabilization of Syria means the same for Lebanon for a variety of reasons, not least of which is the avowal of Sheikh Hassan Nasrallah the leader of Hezbollah to stand shoulder to shoulder with Syria against foreign intervention.

After decades of weathering storms, both Syria and Lebanon are desperately in need of calm. Neither wants conflict. And it would be a pity if they once again fall victim to the “divide and rule” policies of unscrupulous foreign powers, currently shedding crocodile tears over the death of one man and prepared to spill the blood of others... provided, of course, that it isn’t their own.