Six months on from September 11th, President Bush has clearly indicated that while the first phase of the operation against those responsible for the atrocities may be nearing completion, a prolonged war against states sponsoring terrorism and possessing or seeking weapons of mass destruction is now under way.
How this is conducted by the United States and its partners will shape the world for years to come.Although he did not mention Iraq by name in his speech marking the occasion, President Bush is reliably reported to have decided in principle that the US seeks a change of regime there. This, he believes, is the only way to prevent Saddam Hussein developing chemical, biological or nuclear weapons that could be used to attack neighbouring states directly or supplied to terrorist groups who "would unleash blackmail and genocide and chaos".
The US Vice-President, Mr Richard Cheney, is canvassing support for this objective on his current Middle East trip. He has to take fully into account the refusal or reluctance of regional leaders to support him without a swift military de-escalation of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, which has reached appalling levels of violence. The Israeli operation currently under way involves the largest number of troops and tanks in 20 years.
A deeply disturbing element has been introduced into this debate by the Pentagon's Nuclear Posture Review adopted in January but only publicised in the last few days. It makes two major changes to the contingencies in which US nuclear weapons might be used. While previously they would be deployed only against a nuclear armed state or a state in a nuclear alliance, there is now provision to use them against non-nuclear states, even if they have signed the Non-Proliferation Treaty. North Korea, Iraq, Iran, Syria and Libya are mentioned by name, in addition to China and Russia. Secondly, the review opens up the question of developing new nuclear weapons for use against deep bunkers in these states. Both would lower the nuclear threshold and blur the categorical distinction between conventional and nuclear weapons that has stabilised international relations by giving potential nuclear states an incentive not to develop them.
Taken together, these developments herald a much more uncertain and dangerous world. The objectives of preventing and combating terrorism and weapons of mass destruction are widely shared internationally; the means to achieve them are highly contested. The Bush administration has identified Iraq as a source of such weapons rather than of the groups responsible for the attacks on New York and Washington. There is a well-established procedure to process weapons inspections in Iraq through the Security Council. That is the only acceptable way to deal with the matter, despite the instinct of some of Mr Bush's colleagues to proceed on their own. Mr Bush said "our coalition must act deliberately, but inaction is not an option", in a commitment to a joint approach. For that to work deep consultation and agreement on how best to combat terrorism will be sought by its partners and allies. The same applies to nuclear weapons proliferation.