On Iraq’s southern front, Kuwait and Saudi Arabia is the American beachhead. It is here that the US troops, their stockpiles of equipment and their fearsome arsenal await final reinforcements, but still they represent Washington’s muscle flexing in Saddam’s face.

War now seems imminent and some analysts predict a major offensive against Iraq could take place as soon as mid-February.

But the American war machine is not the only assemblage gearing up for a fight. There is an equally strident echo of anti-war sentiment emerging from all corners of the globe, not just Iraq’s Middle Eastern neighbours. As a likely invasion looms closer by the day, political leaders around the world are being urged by demonstrators to avoid conflict and not to back American President George W. Bush’s "phoney war".

Five months after Iraq invaded Kuwait, the spark that set off the 1990-91 Gulf War, President Bush senior had not only assembled a global coalition supporting action against Iraqi aggression, but he had won the war.

Apparently, Hussein is a global terrorist whose secular state tolerates and supports the likes of the Islamic fundamentalists al Qa’ida. Today, Bush’s justification for war against Iraq is that it is an extension of a clamp down on terror. However, it has almost been 18 months since the terror attacks on New York and not only is the American military still not ready, but international support for his plans appear to be faltering.

Concerned that the public will be against any action in Iraq that doesn’t have United Nations support, more and more countries in the European Union are calling for Bush to give the weapons inspectors more time to analyse whether or not Saddam Hussein does indeed have weapons of mass destruction.

Greece, currently holding the presidency of the European Union, has said it doesn’t want war and hopes the EU will do everything to prevent conflict. The EU has responded by suggesting that unless irrefutable proof of Iraq’s alleged weapons is found, declaring war would be "very difficult".

European Union heavyweights, France and Germany, have independently expressed similar responses.

Professor Barry Rubin, Editor of the Jerusalem-based Middle East Review of International Affairs journal, says even Israeli polls show there is no clear consensus on whether an invasion is justified. He suggests that contrary to some foreign statements currently circulating, the notion that an attack on Iraq should proceed never originated in his native Israel.

"If you told people 12 to 18 months ago that the US was likely to attack Iraq, they would be astonished. There are many misgivings about the idea. Polls show Israelis almost
precisely split evenly about whether this is a good idea. If one uses the word "justified," many would agree there is a basis for it. The question is whether it is a good idea and will make things better. Israel will support the United States but there is no Israeli push for such an action."

So why is Bush’s war not gaining the backing he almost certainly would have expected?

Most commentators suggest the first reason is that, unlike the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait 13 years ago, this time there is no "smoking gun". While some suggest that Washington is probably correct in assuming Hussein supports Islamic terrorists, so far no unequivocal links have been published.

Failing that, justification for military action against Iraq hinged on finding proof that Hussein was defying international law by persisting in his weapons program. Again, although even the most ardent opponents of war say there are grounds for suspicion, thus far no evidence has been uncovered.

UN resolutions dating back to the Gulf War provide for the US to take unilateral action against Iraq and despite the apparent lack of grounds for an invasion, its seems an attack is inevitable.

But Bush’s unfaltering view on the situation in Iraq has not only distanced NATO allies - Middle East nations that supported the last campaign have refused to back the US.

Though the Egyptian Government will continue to provide taskforce warships access to the Suez Canal, it says this time it will not participate in a war.

The Editor of Egypt’s Cairo Times, Issandr El Amrani, says the Government’s stance reflects public sentiment.

Many European commentators have also warned that if an attack goes ahead the US risks inflaming Arab nations already irate that they will not force Israel to comply with United Nations resolutions on the occupied territories in Palestine. Amrani says that is indeed one of the reasons why "Egyptians are very angry about the prospect of war".

"Many Arabs have felt that the US, under Bush especially, has been against Arabs during the Palestinian intifada, the war on terror, and now Iraq. Egyptians have been politicised by the intifada and feel solidarity with Palestinians, which they see as deserving of a state that Israel denies them – with US support.

"As for the war on terror, many here worry that it is also a war on Islam and Arabs – a kind of clash of civilisations. The fact that Bush is supported by Christian fundamentalists and has a gaffe of referring to the war on terror as a crusade doesn’t help," says Amrani.

"With Iraq specifically, there is an impression that the US is about to invade a country it has crippled with sanctions to remove a dictator it supported and sold weapons to - with little good reason. Many Arabs resent the double standards applied in Iraq compared with Israel, which the US allows to get away with not respecting UN resolutions and with possessing weapons of mass destruction."

Is Bush’s war in Iraq about Hussein being a threat to international peace, or is it really about oil?

Egypt’s Amrani: "I think the war on Iraq is about fulfilling an agenda that was set a while ago by the people who now surround President Bush – Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, Perle etc. The idea is to secure a permanent military base in the Persian Gulf, neutralise the threat posed by Iraq in the region - which I think is credible by the way even if Saddam doesn’t have nukes - and if not control then at least have a hand in regional oil politics.

"There is no doubt Saddam is a nasty dictator that is better gone – it seems that most Iraqis would agree with that and even support a war. But equally, there is no doubt that the US is not in this for democracy’s sake – it’s about long-term strategic goals, for instance, military and economic control over Iraq and the region," he says.

Barry Rubin plainly disagrees, saying that Hussein’s weapons of mass destruction are the real issue and any suggestion that the war is about oil resources is "absurd".

"There is no shortage of oil whatsoever and the West can buy all it wants. While prices have risen a bit they are far below what they were in earlier decades. The strategic issue is about Iraq’s [weapons] capability and likelihood of using them. This likelihood question is critical. It is the belief that Saddam has launched earlier attacks and would not hesitate to do use these weapons, in contrast even to Iran, that is the central motivation."

But contrary to Rubin’s assertions, in early January the Sydney Morning Herald reported that "while the US and Britain deny oil is a factor in the looming war, some British ministers and officials say privately that oil is more important in the calculation than weapons of mass destruction. They have pointed to the instability of current oil sources and the need for secure alternatives. Iraq has the second biggest known oil reserves in the world".

Nor has the situation been helped by Turkey’s open speculation that it could take control of some Iraqi oil fields in the wake of any conflict.

Whatever the motives are for action against Iraq, people in the Middle East are approaching the prospect of war with apprehension. Amrani says Egyptians are resigned to the fact that there will be a war, and that they are pessimistic about the economic impact associated with a conflict in the region.

"The Egyptian economy has been in crisis for three years now, and has been hit hard by 9/11. Egyptian officials say the war could cost up to $10 billion to the economy, mostly by lost tourism and Suez Canal revenues. They don’t see why they should have to suffer for a war that has nothing to do with them," he says.

In Israel, Rubin says citizens are always alert, but they are still approaching the prospect of war with an understandable degree of trepidation after the 1991 conflict, in which Iraq launched 37 scud missiles against the country.

"Any given event like this one must take its place on the list of threats to security. Being on the receiving end of the world’s largest terrorist campaign and a massive amount of international slander are also factors on the list. But people wonder whether we will be targeted by Iraq [again].

"There have been extensive preparations ranging from improved anti-missile defences to small-pox vaccinations, to issuing of gas masks to civil defence activities, along with military defensive contingency plans and stepped-up counter-terror measures," says Rubin.

However, on the streets of Jerusalem windows have not been covered with plastic sheets and boarded-up as they were prior to the last war – at least not yet. That’s because last time there was a definite date, January 15, when the fighting was expected to start, suggests Rubin. He also believes that the Israeli people have faith in improved missile defences - perhaps because in 1991 the Scuds did little damage, and perhaps because the US has made "strong commitments" to hit missiles.

Nevertheless, Rubin says there is a feeling of greater security in knowing that Iraq has a "very limited" arsenal.

"Perhaps, too, there is a feeling that the Iraqis do not today have the capability of putting chemical or biological warheads on missiles. Though they might get that in the future."

But what will the future Iraq look like if Bush junior succeeds where his father failed? Will the country and the Arab region become any more stable if Hussein’s regime is toppled?

There has been much debate about whether a more moderate government could survive in Iraq and how it would behave. Many Israeli experts have serious doubts about the likelihood of a stable democracy emerging, but so far the general consensus is that the Iraqi people would be better off than they are now.

Amrani says even the Egyptian people would agree with that.

"No one in Egypt likes Saddam Hussein – they know what a tyrant he is. But public opinion is not really defending Iraq’s government. It’s concerned about the possible impact of a war on Iraq’s population, whether a US-imposed Iraqi government would just be a puppet, and that a successful US [campaign] might open the door for US military control in the region, and by extension, a carte blanche for Israel to carry out another incursion into Lebanon or perhaps conduct an ethnic cleansing campaign against Palestinians. These are recurring themes in the Arab press," he says.

In an effort to avert war, Egypt and other Middle East states are now pinning their hopes on an initiative by a small group of Arab intellectuals to publish a petition asking Saddam to stand down. Many suggest that is about as wishful as having Saddam point weapons inspectors in the direction of his cache.

Alternatively, there is a growing public movement to resist what many in the Arab world call US imperialism through a boycott drive and pressure on regional governments to stand up to America – almost certainly a dead end too. Bush has been unrepentant in refusing to listen to world opinion, so why he would acknowledge the Arabs?

"Personally, I’m torn on supporting the war or being against it," says Amrani. "On the one hand, it would get rid of the region’s worst dictator. On the other hand, morally speaking, it is [going to be] fought for the wrong reasons and by a country that has a dismal record in supporting human rights and democracy in the region."

War is imminent, and that war is going to be fought by a president - who has publicly likened himself to a sheriff – leading a nation that has pinned the star upon itself.

Boom! Boom! Boom! Boom…the sheriff is marching onto town and there’s going to be a fight. He’s gunning for a rogue cowboy!