THE missile strike at Iraq has protected President Clinton's domestic flank against charges of weakness in foreign policy, but has left the US facing tougher international criticism than expected and only lukewarm support from "allies".
It is clear that the "coalition" put together by President Bush for Operation Desert Storm in 1991 is no longer available for Mr Clinton, now that issue of Iraqi "aggression" is a black-and-white question.
It is ironic that Mr Clinton's most steadfast ally is Britain's John Major, who had once been unwise enough to let his preference for the re-election of Mr Bush strain relations with this White House.
Indeed a minor spinoff of the present crisis is that the White House will be less ready to cross Mr Major on Northern Ireland matters, as was done over the granting of a visa to the Sinn Fein president, Mr Gerry Adams, in 1994.
While White House aides dismiss claims that President Clinton's hand was forced by weekend criticisms from his presidential opponent, Mr Bob Dole, about his "weak leadership" as the Iraq crisis intensified, it is obvious that electoral issues must have played an important role.
There is a belief that Saddam Hussein deliberately chose the Labour Day weekend for his incursion into the Kurdish area because it also marks the official start of the US election campaign.
The Iraqi leader may have gambled that the US President, emerging from a hectic Democratic convention and engaged in an exhausting electioneering bus tour, was not in proper shape to respond to a fast in-and-out attack on the Kurd headquarters, to install his Kurd headquarters, to install his Kurdish Democratic Party ally.
But here Mr Dole may have played an unwitting role by forcing Mr Clinton into a more belligerent response than he might have wished.
Mr Dole led off his campaign with a stream of criticism of the President for his handling of the Iraq-Kurdish crisis, and accused him of encouraging Saddam to more reckless action by appearing to be indecisive.
Mr Dole was strongly backed by his close friend, Senator John McCain of Arizona. Senator McCain derided Mr Clinton for squandering the "enormous prestige" gained in the Gulf War by "a feckless photo-op foreign policy which has no meaning".
The senator said later he was not aware when he made his criticism that a decision had been made to launch the attack on Iraqi air defence installations, but he did not withdraw his criticism.
Likewise Mr Dole, while saying that he stood "four-square" behind the US men and women in uniform and supported the President's action, yet managed to convey his critical stance when he said that he hoped that "this development marks the beginning of decisive action by the United States to curtail the power of Saddam".
So did the President and his officials take their eye off the ball as the electoral scene hotted up? There are indications here that warnings by some State Department officials about the dangerous implications of the feuding between the two Kurdish factions were not taken seriously enough.
The intelligence that showed Saddam was massing troops close to the Kurdish city of Arbil was available from early last week, but the Pentagon seemed unable to decide if this was a training exercise or the prelude to the attack which eventually took place.
It was a distracting time for President Clinton to have to take tough decisions. He was on a four-day train trip to the convention in Chicago, and giving four to six speeches a day.
In Chicago he had to concentrate on his acceptance speech and then try and deal with the sensational departure of his close political consultant, Dick Morris, after revelations of his relationship with a prostitute.
The President was belatedly having to consult coalition allies in the Middle East and Europe as he barn stormed through four states. He had to stop shaking hands at a rally in Wisconsin to talk to President Chirac - not ideal circumstances for arguing with a difficult ally.
In the end, the final decision was taken as the President flew back to Washington. He had been presented with a list of options by his security adviser, Tony Lake, the previous Saturday while campaigning in Tennessee.
The White House is now claiming that Iraq had been sent several warnings last Wednesday and Friday, both through the UN and directly.
The extension of the no-fly zone in southern Iraq is perhaps more significant than the actual attacks on the air-defence installations in that area.
Mr Clinton has justified this action, which does not have UN backing, by saying that it is necessary to deter Saddam from further attacks on neighbouring countries like Saudi Arabia and Kuwait.
The link with Saddam's incursion into the Kurdish area is not too obvious to some US allies, let alone its critics in the Middle East and Russia.
The dissenting stance of France is a deep disappointment to Mr Clinton. But within the US the ranks have closed as always around the President when it is a question of the lives of American servicemen and women.
Mr Dole and the Republicans have been deprived of one of their main attack weapons against Mr Clinton. The President had already ordered a missile attack on Iraq two years ago in retaliation for a plot to assassinate former President Bush. Now he has shown that he will take on Saddam even when so-called allies refuse to give their support.
Mr Clinton is already far ahead in the polls. He looks even more impregnable today thanks to Saddam.