When the war in Iraq began March 19, speculation was rife about its likely duration. Predictions ranged from very short (less than 10 days) to fairly long (over a month) to very long (a protracted Vietnam-type war). As it turned out, the fighting effectively ended in a little over three weeks. But it's a Pyrrhic victory, politically and diplomatically.

There is no assurance that the turmoil in the Middle East, not just in Iraq, will end anytime soon. The Arab "street" may be glad that Saddam Hussein is gone for good, but it is wary of U.S. domination. The war -- which has been waged without explicit U.N. approval -- appears to have deepened anti-U.S. sentiment in the Arab and Muslim worlds.

The unilateralist U.S. action has also alienated France and Germany, America's traditional European allies. Russia and, to a lesser degree, China also seem to worry that the "go-it-alone" strategy of U.S. President George W. Bush's administration will do more harm than good for international relations.

The rift between America and Europe will likely heal over time. France, for one, appears willing to mend fences with the United States. But the war has done serious damage to the Arab psyche. If the damage is not repaired, a confrontation between the U.S. and the Islamic world -- a "clash of civilizations" -- will become more likely.

Hardline neoconservatives in the Bush administration are trying to spread American values around the globe. For now, that policy appears to have strong public support at home. But whether it will continue to prevail is open to question. America earned international sympathy and support in the wake of the 9/11 terrorist attacks, but the Iraq war seems to have depleted that reservoir of good will and increased anti-Americanism.

Japan, one of the few nations that has staunchly supported the U.S.-led invasion, can savor the victory. Prime Minister Junichiro Koizumi has chosen to put the Japan-U.S. security alliance before United Nations-centered multilateralism. That policy is backed by nearly 50 percent of Japanese, according to media polls.

In my view, the prime minister's decision was motivated in part by the security threat posed by North Korea, a member of Bush's "axis of evil," along with Iraq and Iran. The North has said it is moving toward reprocessing highly enriched uranium. Given its nuclear potential, the Stalinist state could be the next target of U.S. military intervention.

The good news is that North Korea has resumed dialogue with the U.S. for the first time in six months, with China playing host and facilitator. Now, whether the Korean Peninsula will move toward peace or war depends crucially on how the tripartite Beijing talks develop. Worse would come to worst if Pyongyang maintains its nuclear program.

Under the present circumstances a U.S. attack on North Korea seems unlikely. But what if diplomacy failed and the U.S. resorted to military action? Most likely the North would counterattack, perhaps by firing missiles at selected targets in South Korea and Japan, which host U.S. bases.

If Japan were attacked by North Korean missiles, the U.S. would defend it under the Japan-U.S. alliance. It is in this sense that Koizumi's policy on Iraq was prompted more by the immediate threat from neighboring North Korea than the not-so-clear threat from faraway Iraq.

The challenge for Japan is to deal wisely -- diplomatically, that is -- with the clear and present danger of nuclear proliferation in North Korea. At the moment, the chief players in the game are the U.S., North Korea and China. But as the three-way dialogue makes progress, Japan and South Korea will be invited to join in -- as they should be.