But at a crucial moment, Bush clearly has ratcheted up the rhetoric, laid the basis for a vigorous urgent diplomatic campaign against Iraq, Iran and North Korea and left a strong impression military action is a serious future possibility.

"When I watched the president's speech, I saw this as a declaration of war -- against Iraq in particular," said Gregory Gause, a professor of political science at the University of Vermont.

"I don't see how you climb down from this," he said.

After the Sept. 11 attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, the United States focused on alleged mastermind Osama bin Laden and his al Qaeda network, shadowy "terrorists" who were now a prime threat to world order.

Since bin Laden's Taliban protectors were driven from power in Afghanistan by U.S.-led forces and al Qaeda took flight, U.S. officials have turned to states they say sponsor terrorism and seek to acquire nuclear, chemical and biological weapons.

Their argument: If the Sept 11 extremists could wreak so much havoc by commandeering civilian airliners and crashing them into buildings, how much worse would be the damage if their comrades got their hands on weapons of mass destruction.

EVOLVING MESSAGE

In his first State of the Union speech, Bush made a direct assault, charging Iran, Iraq and North Korea were committed to developing weapons of mass destruction and must be stopped. All three countries rejected the accusations.

"States like these, and their terrorist allies, constitute an axis of evil, arming to threaten the peace of the world," Bush said, adding:

"These regimes pose a grave and growing danger...America will do what is necessary to ensure our Nation's security...I will not stand by as peril draws closer and closer."

Some U.S. officials were gleeful about the tough wording but others were caught off guard, concerned it could undermine painstaking diplomatic efforts with Iran and North Korea.

Reflecting the unsettled state of U.S. policy, Bush's speech identified a threat without explaining it fully or defining how the United States might address it.

Moreover, he seemed to paint all three countries with the same broad brush. "You have to evaluate these things on a case by case basis," said Lee Feinstein, formerly a policy planner at the State Department under President Clinton.

One major concern among experts is the wisdom of possibly using military force, instead of diplomacy, against heavily militarized North Korea when ally South Korea and 36,000 American troops are within shooting range.

Feinstein, now with the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, said he agreed with Bush that the United States has a right to act preemptively if faced with a nuclear or other threat.

But he expressed concern the president made no mention of working with NATO and other allies to combat proliferation.

U.S. relations with Iraq have been hostile since the 1991 Gulf War and some key Bush officials, long keen on ousting President Saddam Hussein, are looking for an opportunity to use the anti-terror war to accomplish that goal.

KEEP SADDAM IN A BOX

But while some officials believe Washington eventually will take military action against Baghdad, there is still no administration consensus as others argue for keeping Saddam contained through sanctions and diplomatic pressure.

Although Iran and North Korea remain on the U.S. list of terror-sponsoring states, Washington in recent years has sought common ground more often than confrontation as U.S. relations with both states inched toward improvement.

Negotiations with Pyongyang stalled after Bush took office in January 2001 and undertook a policy review. He later agreed to resume the talks but so far Pyongyang has resisted.

Still, North Korea's nuclear program remains frozen under a 1994 agreement with the United States and it has held to its voluntary moratorium on missile testing.

Iran-U.S. enmity dates to the 1979 Islamic revolution when 52 Americans in the U.S. Embassy were held hostage by student revolutionaries for 444 days.

In recent years, the two sides have edged closer, including cooperation initially on Afghanistan. But U.S. officials have been angered by what they view as Tehran's increasing efforts to interfere in post-Taliban Afghanistan and by Iran's alleged involvement in the recent shipment of a huge cache of weapons to Palestinians fighting Israel.

http://www.reuters.com/news_article.jhtml?type=search&StoryID=557816