Editorial: Iraq could be just the first in US sights

Where might the United States strike next? A year ago that question would not have been asked here. A year ago not many had heard of the new doctrine of pre-emption that the Bush Administration has adopted for America's defence. Iraq has been the first application of the doctrine and if the Administration judges it to be a success there, as so far it plainly does, it has no reason to stop there.

Much as the White House may celebrate the freedom it has brought to Iraq for the moment, it did not undertake this war primarily for the benefit of Iraqis. It acted entirely in the interests of US security as it defines them. Washington would not quibble with that statement; like any responsible government it is obliged to put the interests of its citizens and taxpayers uppermost in its calculations.

So in picking where the US might strike next there is no point in looking at other countries that would welcome freedom from tyranny. Zimbabwe and Kazakhstan, for example, are probably not on any White House liberation list. Nor are Pakistan, Burma or Algeria. The Bush Administration does not see any threat to US security from those countries as it says it did from Saddam Hussein's Iraq.

The threat, it suggested, lay in Iraq's refusal to account for weapons of mass destruction and the possibility that it might hand some of that material to terrorists intent upon harming Americans. It would be easy to nominate other countries that possess those weapons and are not always well disposed to the US, but again there is not much point. North Korea has already proven that possession of weapons material, and even a declared willingness to use it, will not necessarily invite a US military response.

Disarmament, in any case, was never the main objective of the US in Iraq. Had it been, the President would have sent his Secretary of State to Baghdad last December, when US troops were already assembling in Kuwait and the weapons inspection deadline was running out. At that point Saddam could have been presented with a stark choice: surrender the weapons and you will survive. But Mr Bush made no such offer because Saddam's survival was never in his contemplation. Regime change was always the goal.

Why? There are many who think the motive was almost personal. Mr Bush believes his father should have removed the dictator when he had the chance and that it is his filial obligation to finish the job. If so, Iraq may be a unique campaign and no other countries need be alarmed. But influential figures in the Bush Administration plainly intend that Iraq should be a lesson to others.

After September 11, 2001, and the retaliation in Afghanistan, the US designated seven other countries as states sponsoring terrorism: Cuba, Iran, Iraq, Libya, North Korea, Sudan and Syria. A year ago, the Administration declared, "Libya and Sudan seem closest to understanding what they must do to get out of the terrorism business" and acknowledged Iran had been co-operative in Afghanistan. Now Iraq has been dealt with. It leaves Cuba, North Korea and Syria.

It is possible that the President's now proven penchant for settling old scores will put Cuba next in his sights. Electoral considerations in Florida could support that target. And North Korea demands early scrutiny even if the Administration believes it is merely attention-seeking. But the most nervous country now must be Syria, accused last week of aiding Iraq's resistance. Syria provides a refuge for a number of terrorist groups operating in Israel and Lebanon. It does not appear to directly threaten the US but as Iraq has proved, the White House will be the sole judge of that.

The US has reserved the right to attack any country where conditions in its view threaten its security. "Attack", of course, is not limited to military engagement. The considerable diplomatic weight of the United States can be brought to bear. It is to be hoped that, for the sake of world peace and its own reputation, Washington confines itself to the war of words.

Herald Feature: Iraq war