According to President George W. Bush, last Friday's US and British air raids on Iraqi targets around Baghdad were "a routine mission". He seemed surprised by the shocked and hostile reaction they have attracted in the Middle East and Europe. Against the background of the 30,000 sorties flown by US and British planes to police the no-fly zones they have imposed on Iraq since their last bombing attacks on Baghdad in December 1998, it may make sense to describe the latest raids in these terms. But there is nothing routine about their timing or substance - nor about their continuing unacceptability.
The expressed purpose for these attacks on Iraqi radar communications facilities was to destroy equipment capable of damaging the aircraft enforcing the no-fly zones. These were originally imposed by the US, France and Britain after the Gulf War of 1991 to protect Kurds and Shia Muslims from attack by the Iraqi state.
Legally, they relied on an interpretation of United Nations resolution 688, although it does not contain explicit sanction for no-fly zones. France, which has withdrawn completely from the operations, has been to the fore in criticising these latest raids. The validity of their criticism is reinforced by the fact that the raids are intended to reassert a unilaterally-imposed policy, rather than the United Nations regime to eliminate weapons of mass destruction which occasioned the December 1998 attacks on Baghdad.
The legal weakness of the arguments used to justify last Friday's raids is reinforced by the political case made for them by the new Bush administration. It looks as if the new president and his team are simply revisiting the victory won ten years ago in order to drive home the message that US power remains intact and that the new administration is determined to reinforce it. The policy seems to reflect the priorities of the most hard-edged members of his team in the Pentagon and around Vice-President Cheney.
It will certainly make the task of the Secretary of State, General Colin Powell, more difficult on his forthcoming visit to the Middle East. The universal condemnation of these raids by all the region's states (Israel excepted) makes clear that its leaders do not accept the assumptions contained in the policy and have to respond to widespread anger about the effect of international sanctions on the Iraqi people.
In pragmatic terms, this is a reality US and British leaders should take fully into account. Coming at a time of great uncertainty because of the political transition in Israel and widespread sympathy for the Palestinians, it is highly debatable whether this stoking of power politics does more good than harm. President Saddam Hussein's political position within Iraq and throughout the Middle East has been bolstered as a result. There is little evidence that reinforcing the sanctions will achieve the objective of forcing Iraqi compliance, much less facilitating Saddam's downfall. The argument that they have been vindictively directed against the Iraqi people, has become part of conventional wisdom throughout the region.
Mr Tony Blair would also need to tread carefully with his US and European allies following these events. He goes to Washington later this week for talks with Mr Bush. They will be watched very closely in Europe to see how their relationship develops. Much will depend on how Mr Blair tries to bridge the gap between European and US policies and roles on Iraq and the Middle East.