U.S. Secretary of State Colin Powell’s maiden trip to the Middle East in 2001 included a stop in Damascus. There to promote so-called “smart sanctions” against Iraq, Powell’s main demand of the Assad regime was a cessation of illegal oil imports to the country. On the eve of his departure, Powell appeared pleased with Syrian commitments. Soon enough, however, it became clear that the illegal Syria-Iraq trade would not come to a halt, and that Powell has been deliberately misled.

A more cynical Powell arrived back in Damascus last month to demand an end to what he referred to as Syrian sponsorship of terrorism, the closure of Palestinian terrorist offices in Damascus, and a halt to Syrian support for Hizbullah. Syrian President Bashar Assad grudgingly agreed to take steps against the Palestinian rejectionist groups ­ though what those steps are is in some doubt ­ but he appeared immovable on Hizbullah.

Here’s the question of the day: Will the United States accept “no” for an answer?

History being their guide, gadflies in Damascus and Beirut appear to believe that the United States is not terribly serious about its recent demands. Palestinian groups, Syrian officials insist, won’t shut down operations in Damascus, they will only “lower their profile.” And Hizbullah will be tolerated, they speculate, as long as the party avoids attacks in the Shebaa Farms area. But the gadflies are wrong.

In the coming months, Assad may console himself that U.S. attention has turned elsewhere. After all, with former Iraqi President Saddam Hussein on the loose, Iran and North Korea on the boil and Osama bin Laden still at large, Washington has bigger fish to fry. In the old days, Washington’s threats rarely meant much. But times have changed and Assad and Hizbullah remain very much in Washington’s sights.

Several things suggest that the old modus operandi of “live and let live” has been tossed by the wayside. The first is Syria’s behavior during and since the Iraq war. Many in official Washington suspect that ex-Iraqi Baathists have found a safe haven in Syria. There is also a growing suspicion that weapons of mass destruction have made their way across the Iraqi border. That fact, taken in conjunction with a growing body of evidence that Syria is seeking and acquiring a variety of such weapons, means the U.S. simply cannot live and let live.

Another problem is Hizbullah. Notwithstanding Hizullah’s designation as a terrorist group by the United States and others, Syria’s warm ties, supply relationship and political support for the group have not changed. Only Washington’s perception of the problem has.

Hizbullah, believed to have a global network, directs its attacks not only against Israel; it has also expressed open hostility against Jews and the United States. Hizbullah operatives have been arrested off the coast of Israel and in Turkey in recent months. They are firmly entrenched in Africa and Latin America. And Hizbullah has been working with its patrons in Iran to destabilize Iraq and has reportedly, according to recent articles in Foreign Affairs and the National Interest magazines, joined hands with Al-Qaeda for logistical and operational purposes. Independent experts and government sources detail Hizbullah training for Al-Qaeda attacks in Africa as early as 1998.

If all of the above did not constitute a serious concern to the U.S., the recent revival of the Israeli-Palestinian peace process and Hizbullah’s determination to destroy it are enough to keep the party and its patrons in the spotlight.

Finally there is Lebanon. Syria’s military and political domination of Lebanon should have been enough to outrage the West many years ago. There are signs that America’s patience with what Colin Powell has called the Syrian “occupation army” in Lebanon ­ and with the Hizbullah mini-state in southern Lebanon ­ could be at an end. The Syria Accountability and Lebanese Sovereignty Restoration Act of 2003 has 244 co-sponsors in the U.S. House of Representatives and 67 in the Senate, more than enough to become law. The legislation slams the Syrian “occupation of Lebanese territory,” support for “terrorist groups” such as Hizbullah and Syrian unconventional weapons programs.

Does this all mean that Syria is “next?” Does it mean that Hizbullah will soon be on the receiving end of a Tora Bora-like bombing campaign? The answer to both questions is “no.” The United States has many priorities and would like to offer the Assad regime a chance to solve the problem diplomatically. But at the end of the day, the problem must and will be solved, one way or another.

Danielle Pletka is vice president for foreign and defense policy studies at the American Enterprise Institute.