In his State of the Union address the President promised to act against the nuclear threat of Iraq, North Korea and Iran, writes Patrick Smyth in Washington.
It is not a question of if, but when and how. America will turn its focus to ousting Saddam Hussein and to curbing the ability of the Pyongyang and Tehran regimes to develop weapons of mass destruction. That was the key new message sent out on Tuesday night by President Bush in his State of the Union address to both Houses of Congress.
"We will deliberate - yet time is not on our side. I will not wait on events while dangers gather," he warned.
It is no longer a question of isolating these rogue states, the US would have to act proactively. "We must prevent the terrorists and regimes who seek chemical, biological or nuclear weapons from threatening the United States and the world," he said.
"We will not permit them ... to threaten the US."
Mr Bush, one senior administration official confirmed, has consciously raised the ante for all three states and in doing so has significantly redefined his war against terrorism and what some people are calling the Bush Doctrine.
We are no longer just concerned with those who harbour terrorists but with states that pose a threat because of their interest in weapons of mass destruction, whether or not they intend to use them, and whether or not there is evidence of a link to September 11th.
The same official was quick to warn the press against reading into the singling out of the three countries the possible character of the next phase of the war. "We have always said there are a number of elements of national power," she said, including diplomacy and sanctions, as well as military power.
The speech was not a call to use a specific element of that power.
Mr Bush made no bones, however, about his willingness to use US forces, pointing to assistance being given by US soldiers in the Philippines to train its army, and to the naval role in intercepting shipping off the African coast. Administration sources say there is still no internal agreement about what precisely to do about Iraq, but the President's speech lifts it up the agenda.
Dr Ivo Daalder, a foreign policy specialist at the Brookings Institution, says Mr Bush "has laid down a new marker".
"The hardliners have been arguing since September 11th it is intolerable to live in a world in which Iran, Iraq, and North Korea have weapons of mass destruction.
Bush has now fully embraced that paradigm. He has made it clear that either these regimes or their weapons must go," he argues.
The Secretary of State, Mr Colin Powell, has emphasised containment and insisted that the threat from Iraq is not as imminent as that from terrorism.
The President's speech will bring comfort to the hawks and cause some jitters in European capitals where Mr Bush's assertion of the right of the US to speak and act for the world again raises the spectre of unilateralism. No mention here of the UN and the need for collective security.
"History has called America and our allies to action, and it is both our responsibility and our privilege to fight freedom's fight." But what exactly is the place of the allies if they balk at some of what America wants to do? "Some governments will be timid in the face of terror," he said. "And make no mistake about it, if they do not act, America will."
European leaders will also note the response of the Democrats. Their leader in the House, Mr Dick Gephardt said of the President's approach there is "no daylight between us in the war on terrorism".
Mr Bush's claim to global leadership was also asserted as a moral drive for universal values, although the word "universal", anathema to the right, is not part of the Bush vocabulary. "Evil is real and must be opposed," the President said in almost religious terms.
The senior official who briefed journalists insisted the speech was not about imposing American values on others, but about helping those friendly states who wish to modernise and strengthen their education systems. The US is already planning to help the Afghan government with school infrastructure, teacher training and curriculum development.
While the charges being laid by Mr Bush against the three "rogue" states are scarcely new, his decision to name Iran is surprising as the post-September 11th period has seen a significant thawing in relations between Washington and Tehran. There is some speculation that the administration's attitude is hardening again following the seizure of the arms shipload destined for the Palestinians, and evidence of Iranian agents being active among the warlords of north- western Afghanistan.
Finally, it is worth acknowledging the dogs that didn't bark. At no time did Mr Bush refer by name either to Osama bin Laden or Enron. Speechwriters apparently thought mention of the former would remind listeners of a task incomplete, while the latter could conjure unwelcome thoughts of Bush's links with "Kenny Boy".
Nor did the President mention pretzels.
• Patrick Smyth is Washington Correspondent of The Irish Times