WASHINGTON -- Those who fear U.S. dominance and even the military which wields it have a common question after Saddam Hussein's fall. Where will the Bush administration choose to flex its superpower muscle next?

Christened in the Iraq and Afghanistan campaigns, President George W. Bush's new doctrine of striking purported threats before they arise augurs new U.S. military adventures ahead.

It is no secret that regime change in Iraq is a means to an end, and not an end in itself to the U.S. launched after the September 11 attacks.

But Secretary of State Colin Powell on Thursday denied there was a new post-Iraq hit list.

"The United States does not have some plan or some list with nations on the list that we are going to go attack one after another," he told Pakistani television.

Without Saddam, Bush's vaunted "axis of evil" will shrink to just Iran and North Korea, though some aides seem to be sizing up Syria for membership.

"The Syrians are behaving badly, they need to be reminded of that," Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz told a Senate Committee on Thursday.

"If they continue, we need to think about what our policy is with respect to a country that harbors terrorists and harbors war criminals," he said.

Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage set the target list debate rolling, describing Lebanese radical group Hezbollah as "maybe the `a team'" of terrorists at a U.S. Institute of Peace meeting last September.

"They're on the list, their time will come, there's is no question about it," he said of the Iran and Syria-backed anti-Israel group. "They have a blood debt to U.S. and ... we're not going to forget it. All in good time we're going to go after these problems just like a high school wrestler goes out for a match: We're going to take (them) down one at a time."

But Bush's next bout may not just rely on smart bombs, armored divisions or U.S. boots on the ground, especially as armed forces of U.S. adversaries like North Korea and Iran pose a stiffer challenge than Saddam Hussein's decayed military.

Diplomatic and commercial weapons will be unsheathed to promote the administration's hopes that the new Iraq war may catalyse a chain reaction of democratic change throughout the Middle East.

U.S. efforts to install a government in Baghdad will be crucial. A serene transfer to democracy, market economics and homegrown rule would hardly be welcomed by other autocratic Arab regimes.

But if new Iraqi rulers are seen as U.S. puppets or American firms profit from Iraq's oil wealth aspirations for a wave of democracy could fail.

"Everything we do from this point forward is going to have an echo effect, both positive and negative, in the hearts and minds question for people in many other countries," said Steven Clemons, of the new America foundation think-tank in Washington. "This is the game where symbolism is going to matter incredibly."

Senior administration officials insist their hands are full with Iraq, not to mention Afghanistan where warlords are resurgent, and there is no target list.

"No one's thrown down the gauntlet," said Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, when asked by a journalist on Wednesday if a U.S. strike on Syria, accused of harboring Iraqi leaders, could be on the way. "The question you ask, however, is not a question I can answer. It depends on people's behaviors, and certainly I have nothing to announce. We're still dealing with Iraq."

The North Korean nuclear crisis meanwhile still simmers menacingly.

The administration insists Iraq and North Korea are different, and is pushing a diplomatic solution to Pyongyang's drive for nuclear weapons.

But critics say Washington's apparent inability to halt North Korea's nuclear ambitions is sending a dangerous signal.

"What you are doing is you are educating Iran and other nations that their hand is stronger if you have those nuclear weapons in play," said Clemons. "You get nukes as soon as you can because you are not going to have planes coming over and bombing the hell out of you." (AFP)