Why was the US ambassador to Syria recalled?

In response to the Lebanon bomb, the US has recalled its ambassador to Syria. This kind of strong and specific response just seems to have come out of the blue. Obviously I have missed something in recent world events; that is the basis for my question.

I thought that breaking off diplomatic relations was the last step before war, after things like negotiations and resolutions of condemnation and so forth. Even taking into account the Bush administration’s recent big talk, I thought Iran was “next on the list,” whatever that means. Not Syria.

I think it’s a factual question with a factual answer, let’s try to talk about it without pouncing on the hotbuttons that go with this territory.

The White House is pretending that it has evidence that Syria was behind the assassination of former Lebanese prime minister Rafiq Hariri.

Yes and No

Recalling the ambassador != breaking off diplomatic relations.

As diplomacy goes, “recalling the ambassador for consultations” is more serious than having the ambassador deliver a note of protest, and less serious than permanently recalling the ambassador or closing the embassy. It isn’t breaking off diplomatic relations, which usually involves closing the embassy, recalling all diplomatic personnel and expelling the other country’s diplomats. When war has been declared in the past, I believe it has been customary for each country to give all enemy diplomats, and their families, a certain number of days to leave the country.