While Condoleeza Rice, the US Secretary of State, has visited nations including Egypt and Saudi Arabia to urge them to embrace democratic reforms, those who are implacably opposed to such progress in Iraq and Lebanon have again shown their bloody intent. The wave of suicide bombings in Iraq is designed to complicate the political atmosphere in Baghdad and make final agreement on a constitution more difficult. That George Hawi, a prominent anti-Syrian politician, was murdered only 48 hours after a political coalition dedicated to restoring the independence of Lebanon secured a clear majority in parliament elections is not a coincidence either.

The common link is Damascus. The Iraqi Government has again appealed to President Bashir Assad of Syria to stop the flow of foreign extremists into their country by sealing the frontier. The real problem here is not, however, one of “porous borders” — it has never been possible to control hundreds of miles of open desert — but is instead one of porous politics. The Syrian regime is apparently content to allow its Lebanese allies to run riot in that country and to permit groups dedicated to destabilising Iraq to raise funds, acquire arms and then launch operations from within its own safe haven. If not state-sponsored terrorism, it is plainly state-sanctioned terrorism.

For despite the formal withdrawal of its armed forces from within the Lebanon and the ballots cast against its preferred candidates, Syria has numerous cards it can still play in that nation. The anti-Syrian coalition in Beirut does not share much besides a common foe and it can be frustrated by Emile Lahoud, Lebanon’s President, who has intimate links to dangerous elements in the intelligence services. Damascus implausibly lamented the killing of Mr Hawi yesterday and insisted that it wants “stability” in Lebanon. In a sense, this is an accurate statement, but the stability which Mr Assad and his associates aspire to achieve is not that which Lebanese citizens cherish.

The choice for others in the Middle East is whether they opt to travel on the democratic path or to obstruct it. This applies to those who have traditionally been regarded as friends of the United States as well as those who have experienced a more awkward relationship with Washington. In Jordan, for example, there is little doubt that King Abdullah II wants to help the experiment in Baghdad to succeed and that his highly professional forces will stamp out terrorism whenever they encounter it. Yet even in Amman, there are factions who are soliciting money for fanatical groups and individuals and who are intent on causing trouble. Those activities must be curtailed.

The main source of this poison, nevertheless, is Syria. There remain too many politicians and governments in the EU who are inclined to allow Mr Assad the “benefit of the doubt” or to assert that he is “not in full control” of the situation. This is nonsense. Either Mr Assad is calling the shots, in which case he has to be ostracised, or he is a hopeless puppet who it is not worth attempting to reason with. Whichever it is, a trail of terror leads to his door.