SEOUL -- The success of the U.S.-led military campaign in Afghanistan has triggered debates about the next target in the worldwide war against terrorists and their helpers. At the epicenter of this debate, which is not confined to opinion pages of the press, stands Iraq, whose regime many Americans perceive as a permanent provocation.

Differences in the U.S. administration about how to deal with Iraq and its despotic leader are well documented. At the same time, hardliners in Washington who favor an expansion of the war in Afghanistan to the deserts surrounding Baghdad find little support in Europe, let alone the Arab world. Lack of consensus regarding the extent of the campaign -- yes, even the definition of who is and isn't a terrorist -- illustrates how feeble the international alliance is. While there is general agreement that the Taliban and the al-Qaeda network must be eradicated, how to proceed after Afghanistan remains highly controversial.

North Korea belongs to the handful of nations frequently mentioned as potential next targets. This country has a longer record of hostility with the United States than Iraq. President George W. Bush recently caused a stir, when he warned the "rogue states" of both Iraq and North Korea that they would have to bear the consequences for producing weapons of mass destruction. Bush did not specify the consequences. He then called on Pyongyang to permit foreign inspectors to verify that it is not producing such weapons and urged the North to stop selling rockets to other countries.

A few days earlier, U.S. Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld had termed North Korea a "very real" threat to the U.S. The Pentagon suspects that the North Koreans have amassed sufficient plutonium to produce one or two atomic bombs. According to South Korea's Defense Ministry, North Korea possesses 2,500 to 5,000 tons of poisonous chemicals, and has the capacity to produce large amounts of biological weapons.

Bush's statement made international headlines, but the subsequent clarification from State Department diplomats that he was referring only to nuclear programs covered by the 1994 Agreed Framework -- not to chemical and biological weapons -- received only minor attention. It is not the first time that America's chief executive and diplomats have spoken with different tongues regarding North Korea.

This is not surprising as two incompatible views continue to coexist in the Bush administration. One group -- the pragmatists -- favors negotiations with Pyongyang along the lines of the successful diplomacy of the Clinton era, while the conservatives, also known as the ABC (Anything But Clinton) faction, support a tougher posture vis-a-vis the regime of Kim Jong Il.

Although use of military force against North Korea -- which is what some 40,000 American troops stationed in the South train for -- was discussed as one option of U.S. policy in conservative circles before Bush came to power, to my knowledge the hardliners have not publicized such scenarios since Sept. 11.

A recent article in the New York Times sheds light on what it calls the Pentagon's hasty efforts to develop powerful new earth-penetrating weapons. One could assume the weapons are intended mainly to hit Osama bin Laden and his accomplices in their caves in Afghanistan. But, according to the report, the main target of the new weapons is the alleged nuclear, biological and chemical arsenals in Iraq and North Korea.

"Long before we learned about bin Laden's caves, there were North Korea's caves," a high-ranking former U.S. military official is quoted as saying.

Following Sept. 11, though, there have been no visible indications that U.S. military action against Pyongyang is imminent. For political as well as military reasons, an assault on North Korea does not seem to be a realistic option for the U.S. From all we know, North Korea would be a far more formidable military adversary than the Taliban and their Arab mercenaries. More than 1 million soldiers are on active duty north of the Demilitarized Zone, a number that would grow if tensions on the peninsula mount.

One may also assume that a lifetime of brainwashing and communist indoctrination have made North Korean troops more dedicated to the cause of fighting "American imperialism" than are the most radical Muslim warriors.

Probably more decisive in this equation than military considerations are the political arguments: With Washington already facing trouble putting together a united front against archenemy Iraqi President Saddam Hussein, how much more difficult would it be to find allies for military operations against North Korea. China, one may assume, would not only strongly oppose any such moves but also might end up militarily supporting Pyongyang in case of a U.S. attack.

Arguably, the most crucial factor in U.S. military planning regarding North Korea is South Korea. Seoul has left no doubt that it won't participate in military adventures against the North. "There will be no U.S.-initiated war against the North, as South Korea and the United States are coordinating their North Korea policies," South Korea's Defense Minister said a few days ago.

Unification Minister Hong Soon Young, whom Pyongyang's propaganda has singled out as the main culprit in the recent collapse of inter-Korean negotiations, sounded even more dovish: "We both know that if war breaks out, everything will be gone." Let's hope this view is shared by Seoul's trans-Pacific guardians, who are searching for new targets in the war against terror.