The launch of US and British air strikes against the Taliban regime in Afghanistan and the terrorist network of Osama bin Laden reveals that the anti-terror offensive has no credible Muslim or Arab involvement.
This contrasts sharply with the 1991 US-led military coalition against Iraq which recruited troops from half a dozen Arab states and logistical support from others. In the Arab and Muslim worlds, the current operation is seen as a Western Christian crusade against Muslims.
This perception was enhanced by Sunday night's broadcast by Qatari al-Jazeera satellite television channel of an interview taped that afternoon with Osama bin Laden. Bin Laden, flanked by Egyptian and Kuwaiti lieutenants projecting a pan-Arab as well as an Islamist dimension, made two particular points which are likely to have wide appeal among Arabs.
First, he addressed the deep resentments of all Arabs when he spoke of the 80-year partitioning of the Gulf Arab areas. Divided into small states by Western colonial powers following the first World War, many Arabs feel they were robbed of their self-determination and regard the British and US-protected Gulf emirates and the Saudi monarchy as states which have never achieved true independence.
They also see Egypt and Jordan as countries which attained freedom then slipped back into the US ambit.
There is a feeling that Islamists like bin Laden are merely carrying on with the Arab liberation struggle, begun by secular nationalists during the first quarter of the 20th century.
Second, bin Laden's chilling assertion: "I swear to God . . . \ those who live in America will never taste security and safety unless we feel secure and safe in our land and in Palestine." This had a powerful resonance throughout the Arab world.
These words appealed particularly to Egyptians, Palestinians, Lebanese, Jordanians, Syrians and Iraqis who, over the past half century, have been powerless to defend themselves against military action by western powers and Israel. While his address "in eloquent Arabic moved Arabs of all persuasions", one source told The Irish Times, "it will encourage militant extremists to come forward and take action."
This view is confirmed by exiled Saudi dissidents who believe the kingdom's royal family tops the extremists' list of potential targets.
The risk to the Saudi regime was heightened at the weekend when Sheikh Hamoud bin Oqla al-Shuaibi, one of the foremost scholars in the kingdom, issued a fatwa (a religious ruling) stating: "Whoever supports the infidel [ie, the US] against Muslims is considered an infidel [an unbeliever] . . . it is a duty to wage jihad against anyone who attacks Afghanistan."
Similar fat was have been issued by two of his younger disciples. They are given weight by the absence of a ruling by the leading Saudi clerical council on the legality under Islamic law of the US offensive against Afghanistan.
During the 1991 campaign against Iraq, the council supported the government's decisions to accept the deployment of US troops on Saudi soil and to order Saudi troops into action.
Last Friday, Sheikh Saleh bin Abdullah bin Humaid, the senior cleric at the grand mosque in Mecca, Islam's holiest site, called for "new policies, not new wars".
A third element which has given rise to acute unease over the shift from coalition-building to military action is the lack of clear, publicly produced evidence against bin Laden, notwithstanding the evidence produced last week by the British government. Thoughtful commentators say that a case which would stand up in a court of law has not been made, therefore Washington should not arrogate to itself the right to be judge, jury and executioner.
These factors rendered mute moderate regional rulers who have offered political but not military support to Washington. Tehran, which is prepared to join an anti-terrorist campaign under UN auspices, termed the attacks "unacceptable". Yesterday, Iran's supreme religious leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, condemned the offensive while the Foreign Minister, Mr Kamal Kharazi, suggested that Washington was motivated by a desire to extend its influence rather than battle terrorism.
"Our suggestions and those of the Islamic world have not been heeded. From the outset, we said that one cannot use military force in the fight against terrorism. One must know the [political] roots of terrorism and dry them out."
The current military campaign "will not lead to an elimination of terrorism, but expand such activities," he stated.
Baghdad, a frequent target for strikes by US and British war planes, characterised the operation as "treacherous aggression." Saddam Hussein said the strikes "will only lead to more instability and lawlessness in the world" and encourage Washington to use this campaign "to settle scores" with old antagonists, like himself.
Lebanon's Information Minister, Mr Ghazi Aridi, agreed. "What is after Afghanistan? Is it for America to define terrorism and its targets, according to its policies and interests?" he asked. "This is a dangerous matter".
Beirut is worried by the call of hardliners in the Bush administration for an expanded campaign including strikes against Lebanese Hizbollah facilities in the Bekaa Valley.
In Pro-Western Jordan - where the royal family was reportedly targeted for assassination by bin Laden's operatives - the government continued to voice support for the anti-terror campaign without backing military action. Jordan also reiterated its demand for resolution of the Arab-Israel conflict. A former Jordanian minister, Ibrahim Izzedin, said the offensive "will not cure the woes [caused by terrorism] but will further complicate them". He called for "getting to the roots of the problem by addressing the grievances and sufferings of all peoples, particularly the Palestinians." The Gulf emirate of Qatar regretted the use of force. Concern over Washington's post-Afghan agenda could propel Muslim ministers meeting tomorrow in Doha, the Qatari capital, to draft a definition of terrorism which will differentiate between Lebanese and Palestinian movements resisting Israeli occupation on their own soil and terrorist groupings with a broad anti-colonial agenda and an intercontinental reach.