There are risks to Bush's plans. Battle in Iraq could result in a reverse, or there may be some Islamist activity in other parts of the Middle East. We might face another atrocity at home.
One of the least likely outcomes is some anti-U.S. coalition organized to oppose us. I can't imagine any Western governments actually acting to resist us over Iraq. Consider that the Europeans found it hard enough to pay for their defense, much less organize independently of us, when the Soviet Union quite clearly threatened to overrun them. Whatever their rhetoric, the Europeans understand that they are American allies.
Russia has much more to gain by remaining on our good side than by protecting Iraq. China would much rather fight its battles with us over matters much more important to it. Like Taiwan. Each of them has a lot of mutual emnity, more than our hostility to Iraq can overcome.
The Arab countries are not capable of more than duplicity and empty threats. They are incapable of organizing.
Anyway, the threat from Iraq is quite real. The president is right to press forward against it. Better the U.N. be inspired to renewed anti-American gossiping than the U.S. face a nuclear-armed, hostile, and determined Iraq.
I wasn't talking about any kind of anti-U.S. coalition organised to support Iraq in the upcoming war. I was talking about after the war and i'm not talking months after the war but years and decades. I think its quite possible that many nations will form alliances and pacts (formal and informal) to contain the U.S. History shows that weaker nations form pacts to counter the stronger nations (U.S. this time round). The question is who will be with who?