Quick: How would Kofi Annan act if Secretary of State Rice and President Chirac advised him to do one thing, and President Assad of Syria urged the opposite?

Mr. Annan phoned the Damascus dictator last Monday to warn him against interfering in or delaying next month’s Lebanese election. Mr. Assad, in turn, requested that the secretary-general delay a report he was scheduled to deliver to the Security Council last week.

The report, mandated by the council, is expected to evaluate the pace of Syria’s implementation of a resolution demanding that all of its forces leave Lebanon. That resolution, known as 1559, is an important component of the Cedar Revolution – one of America’s most promising policy successes in transforming the Middle East.

The report was going to say that Syria implemented the resolution only partially. The Syrians were not ready to declare that their troops had left Lebanon, and so the increasingly weakened Damascus strongman needed to procrastinate.

Some of Mr. Annan’s advisers thought it wise to allow Mr. Assad time. Washington and Paris, however, oppose any further compromise on the tough resolution they have crafted together, despite their differences on world affairs. Mr. Chirac called Mr. Annan, and so did Ms. Rice. Do not postpone, they said. Please do, asked Mr. Assad. Mr. Annan sided with a rogue leader at least in partial violation of a council resolution, and against two powerful world players.

In a letter to Mr. Annan, the ranking members of the House International Relations Committee, Rep. Henry Hyde, Republican of Illinois, and Rep. Tom Lantos, Democrat of California, expressed their disappointment in a letter to Mr. Annan. “It is imperative, as we near the moment of truth, that you not ease the pressure on the Syrians and thereby diminish the prospect that they will actually withdraw from Lebanon,” they wrote.

Mr. Annan’s advisers will say that his patient diplomacy paid off, as events over the weekend show. Believe what you will.

True, under heavy rain yesterday, truckloads of Syrian troops showed news organizations that they were heading across the border. Better yet, Beirut’s pro-Syrian security chief, Jamil Sayyed, said he would step aside – at least for the duration of a U.N.-mandated full investigation into the February 14 assassination of Prime Minister Hariri, which served as a catalyst for the Cedar Revolution.

For many in Lebanon, Mr. Sayyed was the embodiment of the Syrian iron grip over their nation. His announcement yesterday led to celebratory editorials in the increasingly emboldened Lebanese press. But caution remains. Syria’s notorious Lebanese hatchet man has not announced resignation, just a limited suspension. And that is the crux of the Syrian maneuvering.

This is the Damascus scenario: A four-man U.N. team will arrive next week in Beirut to verify the Syrian withdrawal. The inspectors will go to known Syrian positions in Lebanon and find them empty. They will then give Damascus credit for clearing out. Meanwhile, Syrian operators left behind will have blended into the background, lying in wait to retake the country.

These Syrians withdrew to friendly Palestinian refugee camps and areas controlled by Hezbollah, which has still not agreed to disarm, as 1559 demands. The operators and their allies sit quietly. Damascus assumes that – sooner or later – Westerners will turn their spotlight away, and refocus on some other troubled spot. For now, Damascus hasn’t even bothered to establish an embassy in Beirut, which according to Ba’ath doctrine, is part of greater Syria.

Mr. Annan’s report will be handed to the Security Council tomorrow. The delay allowed Mr. Assad to earn a few points: Even though the report will still not say that Syria fully implemented the resolution, its tone is expected to be somewhat softer than what it would have been last week. This will strengthen those in Damascus who doubt the French-American resolve.

Meanwhile, Mr. Annan risked adding France to the list of those who, for one reason or another, are angry with him. Either out of habit or because he is manipulated by some spiteful anti-American advisers around him, Mr. Annan is willing to risk confrontation with legitimate world powers just to preserve his age-old policy of not confronting small-time dictators.