As General Petraeus prepared his Congressional testimony — including visual props illustrating the routes from Syria used by terrorists to infiltrate Iraq — Israeli jets flying over Syrian airspace delivered a powerful message from the Jewish State. Israeli leaders aren’t talking about it, but according to press reports the Israeli planes wheeled out of the sky firing missiles at an installation that housed large supplies of weaponry from Iran. The Israeli message, directed at Syria, was this: “You cannot with impunity continue to rearm Hezbollah directly, nor allow your territory to be used by Iran to transship arms. Doing so has consequences. As we demonstrated last summer, we can reach Hezbollah. We are reminding you that we know what you are doing and where you are doing it and want you to understand the grave consequences that follow from your policy.” This will be true even if it turns out that the Israeli strike was against a new sophisticated Russian anti-aircraft system that, its engineers bragged, was immune to electronic jamming. Syria and Iran should know that they have no protection from Israeli and American air power.

Diplomatic reactions have set in, including some warnings that any escalation between Jerusalem and Damascus could undercut attempts to convene a regional peace parley later this autumn. Count us among those who do not fear such a prospect. The question is not whether one favors peace over war, but rather under what conditions. We have long maintained in this space that progress toward peace will not come until and unless the Iranian camp, which includes Syria and the terrorist groups in Lebanon and the Gaza Strip, comes to see its own power as diminishing and America and Israel as sustaining their strategic edge and dominant positions. As long as President Ahmadinejad and the Hezbollah strongman, Secretary-General Nasrallah, believe that they are likely to emerge from the current situation better off, they will not agree to the concessions necessary for diplomatic progress.

That is the logic of viewing the Syrian affair in the context of the Battle of Iraq. Syria exerts a malignant influence over most of its neighbors, including Lebanon, the Palestinian Arabs, and Iraq. If the borders with Turkey and Israel are stable it is because the regime in Damascus faces countries stronger than Syria. The incursion into Syria by Israeli jets has provoked the usual bellyaching from the pro-Iranian camp, including North Korea. Mark, though, that Arab states have been largely silent, although the Egyptian president noted that any intrusion into Syrian airspace might endanger the “peace process.” On Monday, the Turkish foreign minister chastised Israel, saying: “All countries in the region must show respect to all countries’ sovereignty and carefully avoid acts that lead to tensions. Otherwise, tensions would be fueled and peace and stability in the region might be harmed.” As if the status quo ante was just, how to put it, honky dory.

Both Iran and Syria are violating the Security Council resolution, number 1701, that ended last year’s fighting. The Council’s resolution bars the rearming of non-government armed factions in Lebanon. This has been a farce from the start. Hezbollah, meanwhile, put out a statement saying the incursion by IDF jets was to scope out attack routes to be used against Iran. Hmmmm. It seems the Iranian camp believes in its own destiny not only because of the fantastical theocratic visions of its leaders. They know what they are doing. That the Syrians have not responded speaks more loudly than any bluster of Mr. Nasrallah. Earlier this month, Lebanese troops loyal to the pro-western, elected government in Beirut finally prevailed over Fatah al Islam, a terrorist group with Al Qaeda links that had taken up residence in a Palestinian refugee camp. America has increased the number of carrier groups in the Persian Gulf back to three. Things are now in motion in a war that is larger than the one about which the Democrats are caviling.