Political scientists and historians say presidential power has grown in foreign affairs since the end of the Cold War and there are far fewer constraints on Bush than on past presidents.

"In practice, he can do almost whatever he wants in foreign affairs. There is little to check US power and presidential power," said American University historian Allan Lichtman.

The US Senate Foreign Relations Committee held hearings last week. It started what is likely to be an intense public debate about the wisdom of invading Iraq, named by Bush as part of an "axis of evil" intent on seeking weapons of mass destruction.

Bush said last week military action was not imminent. But he sounded as determined as ever to get rid of Iraqi President Saddam Hussein, whom his father, former President George Bush, failed to remove at the end of the Gulf War 11 years ago.

"We will not allow one of the world's most dangerous leaders to have the world's most dangerous weapons and hold the United States and our friends and allies hostage," Bush said.

"We'll deal with Saddam Hussein and he knows that."

While Vice President Dick Cheney and Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld are thought to be pressing for a military onslaught early next year, Secretary of State Colin Powell remains skeptical, as do several key congressional figures, including Senator Richard Lugar of Indiana, a respected Republican voice on foreign policy.

Leading Democrats, like Senator Joseph Biden of Delaware, the chairman of the panel that held the hearings, say they believe an invasion is inevitable, but that the administration must first seek congressional approval for the action.

"A lot more spade work has to be done to make a case to the American people, its allies and the region," Biden said.

Few politicians want to be branded as soft on Iraq, or risk casting a vote that could come back to haunt them in future elections.

Some Congress-watchers believe a war resolution would win the support of virtually all Republicans and two-thirds of the Democrats.

A steady stream of leaked military plans to the media also suggests there are deep misgivings, if not outright opposition, in senior US military ranks to an invasion.

Although this would not stop Bush if he was determined, it might make him think twice.

"The president has considerable authority as commander-in-chief and does not require either unity in his Cabinet or unanimous support from the uniformed military services," said Stephen Walt, a government professor at Harvard University.

The US public has hardly begun to debate the prospect of another war.

But key allies in the Middle East, including Egypt, Jordan and Saudi Arabia, as well as close NATO nations in Europe and Canada, are openly opposed.

"International opposition will be great but it does seem to dissipate once the United States sets its course. I've rarely seen the United States fail to get its way with something like this," said Michael Ratner, president of the Centre for Constitutional Rights in New York.

"There is not much backbone in the world against the United States. It has so many carrots and sticks.

"Some countries will snipe but the United States is so dominant right now it would take a lot to stop us."

In a 1999 book called "The Debate over Intervention," Richard Haass, who is now a senior State Department official, argued that in the post-Cold War environment the United States had far greater freedom to deploy military force than before.

"The idea that one man alone would have the power to launch a war of this magnitude would have the framers of the Constitution spinning in their graves. They wanted to ensure we could never rush into a conflict as devastating as this one could be without adequate debate and national support," said Gene Healy of the Cato Institute, a conservative think tank.

(China Daily August 9, 2002)