Bush came to power enunciating a policy in which America was "humble, but strong". He was keen that the US disentangle itself from its involvement in the many theatres of conflicts across the world. But 9/11, which Bush called the "Pearl Harbour of the 21st century", changed all that.

Hours after the attack on the twin towers, an angry Bush told Vice-President Dick Cheney, "We are going to find out who did this and we are going to kick ass." The same day he told his countrymen on television, "This will be a monumental struggle between good and evil. But good will prevail."

GO-IT-YOURSELF: Bush enunciates his foreign policy

Twenty months and two wars later, both militarily successful, there is a startling simplicity to Bush's Manichaean worldview that is both appealing and frightening. Like the third century a.d. Persian philosopher who preached dualism, Bush believes there are Satanic forces represented by an "axis of evil" that are in a state of everlasting conflict with the good (primarily the US) and have to be taken on. Or to use his phrases, "We have to root 'em out" and "have flies walking over their eyeballs". In this battle, the other countries are "either with the US or against it".

If the 20th century will be remembered for the collapse of the European imperial system that saw nearly 500 years of history come to a close, then the 21st century is already being talked about, though pejoratively, as the beginning of the US imperium. After the collapse of the Soviet Union, America has no countervailing power ranged against it. As the Iraq war demonstrated, if America decides to act, it will. And no force, individual or collective, can deter it. Not since the Roman empire has the world witnessed a nation-state with such unparalleled economic and military might.

The Iraq war is now regarded as the first preponderant foray of this hyperpower asserting its worldview decisively. A shock-and-awe tactic that former US diplomat Henry Kissinger says "is a defining juncture in the US foreign policy. A historic turning point. It will require a re-examination of the basic assumptions of the past 50 years." The war brought a do-it-yourself unilateralism. It indicated America's unwillingness to be tied down by institutions and alliances such as the UN and NATO. It may possibly be a guide to the unfolding vision of how Bush and his administration now deal with the world. And it frightens the hell out of most nations.

Prudence would suggest that after a victory much faster than anticipated, the US would go into a phase of consolidation. However, if sections of the administration are to be believed, Iraq seems only the beginning, and the next stop will be Syria. This thinking has gained ground after belligerent utterances by US Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, which were followed by Bush's warnings to Syria for aiding the erstwhile Iraqi regime.

"It is too early to tell. If Iraq is any indication, then xxxx

As the aggressive US leader battles for 'good over evil', pre-emptive strikes are in and old alliances are being recast. The simplicity is both appealing and frightening.

Go-it-yourself: Bush enunciates his foreign policy this talk on Syria is deadly serious," says Charles Kupchan, former director for European affairs in the National Security Council during the first Clinton administration, and presently associate professor at the Georgetown University. It fits in with the new US policy, under which an aggressive American leadership is the only way to ensure global good.

This is articulated by the clutch of neo-conservatives who have come to dominate the ideological debate in the Bush Administration. This group consists of individuals drawing inspiration from the Reagan era. They believe in the ideology of the primacy of American military power together with democratisation, at times derisively referred to as "democratic imperialists".

Old-style Republican conservatives read history lessons and worry about the use of state machinery, the heavy expenses on society, and in the long run, its interference with people's lives that begins to impinge on freedom and human rights. But the neo-conservatives led by Paul Wolfowitz, a deputy of Rumsfeld, are willing to jettison such fears and believe in the forthright use of state power to attain national objectives.

The buzzword is "proactive interdiction", which means pre-emptive action of the Iraq kind as a legitimate form of self-defence, essentially to nip in the bud any regime that threatens its security. As a senior US State Department official says, "We are telling Syria and its ilk that there is a new world out there and the days of supplying funds for terrorism and developing weapons of mass destruction (WMD) are over. Now, instead of deterrence we have pre-emption."

Can the US go it alone?

Others in the administration do not believe that Iraq is the vanguard of what America needs to do to deal with recalcitrant nations. There was a consensus because Saddam Hussein was an odious dictator hated by his own people. Saddam had turned world opinion against him by invading Kuwait and he posed a psychological danger. As an official says, Iraq was a mortally wounded snake with very little poison left in its glands. It was crushed militarily in 1991 and 13 years of debilitating sanctions meant winning a war against it was a relatively safe bet. As Kuwaiti political analyst Ahmed Bishara puts it, "Two world powers and a losing regime in Baghdad-there was no chance in hell for Saddam."

THE NEW ORDER: US troops celebrate the easier than anticipated fall of Baghdad that ended Saddam's regime

The compelling set of factors that took the US to war with Iraq are not valid in case of Syria, or for that matter Iran. There are no UN resolutions against these countries. Iran has a clean chit from the IAEA that it is not making nuclear weapons clandestinely. There is nothing the US can morally build on these countries as it did with Iraq. The immediate challenge comes from North Korea, among the three axes of evil named by Bush, the other two being Iran and Iraq. North Korea, in recent months, has bluntly told the US that it has nuclear weapons and that it will continue to build them although it is a signatory to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. But it is now making conciliatory gestures. How the US deals with this threat will also define its emerging foreign policy.

While the US gloats over its swift victory in Iraq, it is still smarting from the traumatic defeat it suffered in the UN Security Council. Even countries totally dependent on its largesse, such as Mexico and Chile, refused to toe the US line. The serious rift with two of its NATO allies, France and Germany, was another blow to its credibility. The US has the clout to demonstrate to these countries what it means to turn their backs on it. But would it serve its long-term interests? Indian Foreign Secretary Kanwal Sibal believes that "even a powerful nation cannot take irrational decisions and has to act with common sense".

Common sense, then, is likely to be a powerful guide to the way the US handles its relations in the near future. In Iraq, it is already apparent that America and its allies will not be able to handle the task of administering and rebuilding the shattered country on their own. They would perforce have to invite other countries to help restore law and order and run the administration till a new Iraqi regime can take on the task. As a senior official joked, "There is a caste system here. The Kshatriyas do the fighting and we need the Shudras to clean up."

So while the US keeps its grip on Iraq's oil resources and ensures that it has a pro-American regime in power, it would want other nations to step in and help with the task of rehabilitation. "Europeans are concerned that America might get used to the idea of division of labour where it does the kick-ass act like in Iraq and expects the UN and Europe to go with broom and dustpan to mop up," says Peter Lawler, an expert on international relations at the Manchester University.

The other priority for America is to mend its relationship with its trans-Atlantic allies. Certain influential sections in the Bush Administration believe that constituents of the old Europe have long outlived their utility and that there is a greater need to build new alliances. "This new security doctrine is causing a lot of concern in Euro circles as it espouses universal values but projects limitless supremacy of American power. It has no rival and will tolerate no power," says John Palmer, political director of the European Policy Centre in Brussels.

Common sense, however, will also dictate that the US does not jettison alliances that it has built over 50 years with "blood and treasure". The US requires engagement with the world, otherwise it would be contrary to its other foreign policy objectives of promoting globalisation and free markets. But while there may be a patch-up, from now on they would work on an issue-by-issue basis. The degree of automation and goose-stepping that symbolised the past is likely to end. But while there would be multilateralism in the US decision-making, it would not be with the same cast of characters. Instead, there would be more of the "coalition of the willing" to tackle major issues. The east Europeans may gain, as could India.

Who gains, who loses?

How America deals with the Muslim world, especially the Middle East, will be critical. It is expected to follow "a carrot-and-stick policy" that reaches out to moderate states while trying to firmly tackle nations that support terror. It will strive to push through a fair settlement on the Palestine issue. The US Administration believes that Islamic retribution post-Iraq is a lot of hype. As a State Department official says, "There are crazy Islamists who would strike at us whether we went to Iraq or not." Also, as the war demonstrated, the Muslim umma was hardly visible and there was no sign of any Arab unity.

IN THE COLD: (From left) Chirac, Putin and Schroeder will have to contend with a Bush who respects no traditional alliances

"I can see a backlash happening if the US continues to give the impression that it is creating an American outpost in the Middle East. Iraq will be a bellwether in a lot of respects," says Scott Lasensky, senior fellow on Middle East studies at the Council for Foreign Relations. The Arab countries fear the democratisation process in Iraq because it could lead to the Shias, who form a majority, forming a government. This could radically alter the distribution of power in the Middle East and could lead to a fall in the pre-eminence of the Sunni-ruled Saudi Arabia in the region.

That may not be a bad thing for India. Any dent in the Saudi power would have its impact on Pakistan as many of the fundamentalist organisations receive funding from their supporters in the kingdom. If the American game plan of having predominantly pro-western democratic regimes works in the region it could knock out the roots of terrorism for India. To expect America to abandon Pakistan at this point would be foolish. The US needs Pakistan to complete its unfinished business in Afghanistan, as a gateway to Central Asian oil and as a major Islamic country that could remain moderate. Also, the US can't push it around because it has nuclear weapons.

Despite India's opposition to the Iraq war, the convergence of interests for the US and India is a case for them to build a friendship. As Sibal says, "However much we may have disagreed in the past, we must not have disagreements about the future." In Iraq, this could see India playing a major role in rehabilitation and peacekeeping-under "legally and politically" acceptable conditions, of course. Like everyone else in the world, India would have to adjust to the world according to Bush. Those close to the US President say he is actually "in between worlds". And that there is a struggle in his administration for the "soul" of the President which is not likely to be resolved soon. Till then, the world waits with bated breath.

-with Ishara Bhasi in London