As the world waited for the inspector's report to the UN, Colin Powell told us that the US had 12 countries that have offered support, but he is not prepared to reveal them. The White House says that it has compelling evidence of Iraqi defiance - but it cannot reveal the details. It's a strangely unrevealing position for an administration whose ideological position is derived from the Book of Revelation in the Bible.

I can hazard a guess at some of those countries that have pledged their support. Israel, for o­ne, cannot get involved in action against Iraq without queering the regional pitch even more than it has with Prime Minister Ariel Sharon's o­ngoing campaign against the Palestinians.

Indeed the Jordanians are trying to buy anti-aircraft batteries and Patriot missiles -- which for domestic consumption they claim are to stop Israeli over-flights, but for the Americans they probably claim the weapons are intended to bring down Scuds going the other way.

Then there is Britain, which is now insisting that military action must be preceded by at least an attempt at a UN resolution. The Turkish military is still haggling for the best price, but the increasingly skeptical elected government wants a UN resolution.

The Arab allies in the Gulf have all indicated a strong preference for a UN mandate. There are the sundry Ruritanian candidate members for Nato, which Washington regards as sort of fifth column into Europe.

Soon, however, they will realise that EU cash is far more reliable than any amount a parsimonious US Congress will ever cough up - and that a possibly aggrieved Germany and France are needed to countersign payment orders drawn o­n Brussels.

One of these states is Bulgaria, whose contingent in the Cambodia peacekeeping operation misbehaved so badly that before they were withdrawn in disgrace, they had the Cambodians thinking longingly of the good old days of the Khmers Rouges.

Secret weapon

In the end, I suspect that the balance of the dozen crypto-allies is the key American secret military and diplomatic weapon.

A fleet of dugout catamarans may be paddling its way from the Pacific to the Gulf with the combined armed forces of the Marshall Islands, Micronesia, Palau and Nauru, the insular microstates whose total population is less than a Gaza Strip refugee camp - and whose budgets are almost totally dependent o­n the US government. (In fact that is unfair to Nauru whose fortunes are founded o­n birdlime excavated and sold for fertiliser, but spiritually, the finances are about o­n an equally tainted par.) These are the o­nly states the US can usually count o­n to support Israel in UN votes.

These countries are incidentally dominated by fundamentalist churches whose views o­n the Middle East are derived from close study of what God wanted done to the Amalekites and similar lesser breeds without the law. They probably also often study the Book of Revelations, come to think of it.

The joy of that Book is that it is so cryptic in its frothing prophecy that anyone who wants to can read their own interpretation into it. Indeed, it reminds me of UN weapons inspector Dr Hans Blix's report to the Security Council.

This is not to demean Mr Blix's prose style, which is admirably clear, despite apocalyptic mentions of huge quantities of anthrax and VX nerve gas and similar Armageddonish weaponry.

But since it is fairly objective the various parties each read their own deepest desires and worst fears into it, as if it were a psychologist's inkblot test.

In effect, Blix's report reflected the realities. Iraq has cooperated in the forms of the inspections, but Blix made little secret of his strong suspicions that they have been less than candid about their weapons programmes.

On the other hand, he certainly did not suggest that he had clinching evidence for his suspicions, and he certainly did not return a verdict of non-cooperation or material breach significant enough to trigger a security council vote.

'Four horsemen'

His colleague Mohamed El Baradei, for the nuclear inspectors, had an easier task. It's harder to hide a nuclear reactor. But o­ne feels sure that Washington will make him pay for his temerity in pointing out that it took two years of inspections for the IAEA to give a cooperative South Africa a clean bill of health when it gave up its nuclear programme.

That two year figure was seized upon by many diplomats who wanted to give the inspectors time, and it was not what Washington wanted to hear when it thought two weeks extra for inspections a generous offer.

The US seized upon the instances of non-cooperation and tried spinning up and down the press floor to prove that Blix was agreeing with them.

However, it was uphill work. The rest of the world does not want assurances from the US that it has inkblot tests masquerading as intelligence reports that o­nly skilled American operatives can see and interpret.

Other countries want a smoking gun, definite conclusive evidence, not indicative joined-up dots, before they vote for military action. And most of the US allies (apart from the canoe brigade) want a UN vote before they will support war.

Indeed so does the US public.

Your move, Mr Bush. It's put up or shut up time. And it may be a good time to rein in Wolfowitz, Bolton, Rumsfeld and Perle, those 'four horsemen' of the apocalypse, and get them back to barracks before they frighten off any other potential allies. - GVNN