President Bush was praised for building the coalition after the September 11 attacks. But following the defeat of the Taliban and the installation of Hamid Karzai's interim government, the war against terrorism moves towards a second phase and the US position is looking increasingly unilateral.

Following the September 11 attacks, Colin Powell, US secretary of state, called for 'everyone' to join them in a great coalition to conduct a campaign against terrorists who are conducting war against civilized people. A coalition was established led by the US, with its traditional British and European partners, but also supported by new military allies including Japan, Russia and Pakistan, and with some of America's allies in the Middle East - most notably Saudi Arabia, staying very much in the background.

The terrorist attacks against the US produced a shift in alliances comparable to the end of the second world war, but the war in Afghanistan was still a campaign with fairly traditional aims - to capture and punish Osama bin Laden, the members of the al-Qaeda terrorist network and the Taliban who harboured them.

However the second phase of the campaign against terror promises to be far murkier than the first. The next steps will involve a much more diffuse set of operations, spread over several continents, aimed at thwarting the ability of a broadly defined range of terrorist groups to carry out attacks against the US or its allies.

In his first state of the union speech January 29 2002, President Bush described Iran, Iraq and North Korea as comprising an 'axis of evil' with their 'terrorist allies'. This has offended governments through out the Middle East, China and Russia that were part of the original coalition. European governments were also concerned that the 'fight against terrorism' could be following America's foreign policy agenda and might conflict with their own foreign policy.

This puts Mr Blair, who has offered unstinting support to the US since September 11, in an awkward position. Mr Bush's denunciation of Iran creates a dilemma for Britain, which has pursued a policy of "critical engagement" with reformist elements of Iran's leadership. Tehran's recent rejection of the new candidate for the position of ambassador, which could be interpreted as a response to Mr Bush's comments, will make that policy more difficult.

FT.com news and comment Spreading alarm amongst friends by Quentin Peel Caught in the middle by Brian Groom Tehran rejects Britain's new envoy