"The killers of Mr. Gemayel have not been identified and may never be. But the attack fits snugly into a pattern of provocations across the region by Iran and Syria, which appear to believe that American reversals in Iraq have given them the opportunity to create what Syrian dictator Bashar al-Assad calls "a new Middle East" — one in which their influence and radical ideology will predominate. They would make their client Hezbollah the power broker in Lebanon, restoring Syrian suzerainty. They would use Hamas to block any progress toward an Israeli-Palestinian settlement and perpetuate a continuing, if low-grade, war on Israel. And they would continue to bleed the United States by supplying insurgents in Iraq with arms and sanctuary. Iran meanwhile presses ahead with its barely disguised nuclear weapons program: President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad recently promised to increase the number of centrifuges enriching uranium from the current 328 to 60,000." Washington Post
This editorial virtually endorses any number of neocon propaganda lines:
It assumes that Iran and Syria are unmitigated forces for evil in the world who can only be dealt with through force and the threat of force or sanctions.
It assumes that Hamas is simply a tool of Iran and Syria without any other status at all.
It assumes that the Hariri/Siniora/US government assertion that the Syrian government killed Pierre Gemayel must be true.
It assumes that a greater share of political power in Lebanon for Hizbullah and Amal would be a bad thing. The evident truth that the Shia represented by these groups are grossly under-represented seems to mean nothing to the Post.
It assumes that Hizbullah is a "puppet" of Iran and Syria. It says nothing about the influence that the US and France exercise over the Hariri/Siniora camp.
Based on this editorial as "capstone" for many other recent pronouncements, I judge the editorial page of the Washington Post to be a neocon rag.