Sympathy, like a welcome, wears thin with abuse. While much of the world shared America's grief after the horror of September 11 and was largely supportive of its campaign against the Taliban and Al Qaeda, very few people are cheering President Bush on as he prepares to battle his "axis of evil."

The truth is that the first phase of America's "war against terrorism" was not seriously opposed because of the odious nature of its enemies. Neither Mulla Omar's Taliban nor Osama bin Laden's Al Qaeda had succeeded in winning hearts and minds as the former oppressed their fellow Afghans and the latter spread death and distress in many countries. Given the ugly nature of both organizations as well as the symbiotic relationship between them, not many tears were shed as they were bombed into oblivion.

Even when evidence of significant casualties among innocent Afghans started piling up, many of us considered this a sad but necessary price for getting rid of this malign cancer that had begun infecting the body politic of Pakistan. Even though we all knew the so-called coalition was in reality a fig-leaf for the mighty American forces that pounded the Taliban into submission and dispersed and destroyed Al Qaeda, we played along with the innocent deception as we thought that in this case, the Americans had a moral justification for the use of overwhelming force.

But now that the Afghan campaign is virtually over, we find ourselves on the verge of a series of American-initiated wars without end. Although the United States is militarily more than capable of waging them without allies, it will nevertheless seek international support despite the feeble protests over Bush's "axis of evil" speech.

Currently, even Tony Blair, that most allied of allies, is distancing himself from the extreme American position. Nevertheless, once the shooting stats, there is no doubt that the mantra of "If you aren't with us, you are against us" will be invoked and many reluctant countries will fall in line.

It is an indisputable fact that the American preponderance over the rest of the world has reached a point where it can afford to act unilaterally anywhere. The United States today spends 40% of the entire world's defence expenditure on its armed forces; and this will go up if Bush's request for an increase of $43 billion for the defence budget is approved by Congress. Any one of its several naval battle groups can devastate entire continents; and there are currently three of them near our shores. In terms of sheer firepower as well as military technology, the Americans now outgun the rest of the world put together.

Does this mean that everybody else has been reduced to the status of targets, neutral spectators or fawning assistants? It is clear that the stunning success of its campaign in Afghanistan has bred a kind of hubris in Washington. The right-wing cabal surrounding Bush and dominating the defence department has seen that they have succeeded in meeting most of their war aims without any losses to speak of. Equally importantly, the feared explosion of anger in the streets of Muslim countries turned out to be a damp squib.

Now, by drawing a bead on Iraq, Iran and North Korea, the Bush administration is seeking to complete its global dominance. The thing these countries have in common is not terrorism but a track record of defiance of the American diktat. And here lies the major difference between Afghanistan and the "axis of evil": while much of the world was convinced of Al Qaeda's hand in the September 11 attacks, nobody really believes that Tehran, Baghdad or Pyongyang was involved.

It would appear that Iraq is first on the list for its alleged attempts to acquire weapons of mass destruction. Considering that Saddam Hussein was supplied with all kinds of western arms and technology in his decade-long war against Iran, and nobody in Washington or London turned a hair when he used poison gas against Iranians and his own Kurds, it seems a bit hypocritical to use this as a pretext. In any case, UN inspectors have spent nearly a decade trying to locate any weapons not destroyed in the Gulf War; if such weapons are still concealed, these inspectors should be sacked for incompetence.

If and when a campaign against Iraq is launched, it will be far longer and bloodier than the one against the Taliban rabble, specially as its stated aim is 'regime change'. As the collateral damage rises, so will the temperature in Arab streets. This anger is likely to turn against the corrupt leaders in much of the Arab world who rely on American support to stay in power. But so confident are Bush and his advisers that they and their creatures in the Middle East will ride out the storm that they are seemingly going ahead with planning the Iraqi campaign. And given the general apathy in the face of the Israeli excesses being committed against Palestinians, the Americans might well be right in their calculation.

But as the Israelis are learning to their cost, overwhelming military superiority is not always enough to win a war, specially when the victims are close enough to retaliate. Both the Gulf War and the Afghan campaign were waged far from American shores, giving the losers little opportunity to strike back. This is particularly true in the new strategy of using precision-guided munitions launched from a distance. However, most military planners have absorbed the lessons from these campaigns and will be thinking of dispersing and concealing potential targets.

The most crucial lesson strategists will have learned is that a conventional set-piece battle against American forces is tantamount to suicide. Without the counterweight of a competing superpower like the ex-Soviet Union, the Americans are indeed masters of all they survey, having attained "full-spectrum dominance" over the rest of the world. The question before those wishing to challenge this hegemony is how to strike at America without becoming sitting ducks themselves. They will no doubt conclude that a kind of global guerrilla warfare against "soft" American targets of the kind waged by Al Qaeda is the only option.

It will be ironic if the "war against terrorism" and the threatened campaign against the "axis of evil" give rise to a greater wave of terrorist attacks against American targets.