The terror that struck the World Trade Centre and the Pentagon, leaving nearly 6000 people dead or missing, may have been aimed at America, but it killed people from every corner of the globe. The dead came from 64 countries, including some Islamic countries. Pakistan, the chief nurturer of some of the groups linked to the prime suspect, Osama bin Laden, was one of the hardest hit, losing more than 200 people. It has been said that we are all Americans now. Certainly, if anything were needed to show just how interdependent the world has become, this was it. No country can divorce itself from what has happened in the United States. Yet paradoxically, what happens in the world in the days and years ahead depends more than ever before on the conduct of one country, the US.

What should America do? What can America do? In the days immediately after the atrocities, virtually the only call in the US was for revenge, and this call was understood and echoed around the world. More than a week later, the almost unconditional support from abroad for military reaction has lessened considerably. A procession of world leaders has been visiting or telephoning Washington, seeking to persuade the White House that only a multilateral approach based on consultation and United Nations support can justify the use of military power in response to a vague terror network based in Afghanistan and elsewhere. They are right. If this is indeed the first war of the millennium, it is a very different war from any that has been fought before. It is a war the US cannot win on its own. It will need international cooperation, and most of all it will require the support and cooperation of the Islamic states, some of which have been harboring the terrorist groups that have vowed war on the West.

These states need to realise that these groups are a threat to themselves too. The US needs to realise it will not win the cooperation of Muslim countries by bombing Afghanistan or Iraq. Indeed, to do so would not only harm thousands of innocent people but could have grave consequences for the region and the world.

If anything good could come from such a tragedy, it should be the realisation by the world's only superpower that it cannot withdraw from the world. Until now, the messages coming from the administration of President George W. Bush have been of unilateralism: that it would withdraw from wherever it could, build its missile defence shield, refuse to ratify international treaties and leave the Middle East to sort out its own problems. Now, at least some minds appear to have been concentrated. The US knows it needs to stop the violence between Israelis and Palestinians if it is to recruit Arab states for its fight against terrorism. Israel and the Palestinians have so far largely honored a tentative ceasefire in the West Bank and Gaza Strip. Given its long history, too much optimism would be naive. However, there is some faint glimmer of hope for some resolution in this most difficult conflict. It may not be resolved even with resumed US intervention. But it will certainly not be resolved without it.

So far President Bush has performed the extraordinarily difficult role demanded of him better than many might have expected. His early rhetoric was not encouraging. His constant use of the word "evil" and his promises to rid the world of "evil-doers" is the kind of language that could be expected from the very extremist groups he is targeting, and who regard Americans as the evil-doers. His comment that bin Laden was "wanted, dead or alive" may have made some Americans feel better for a while, but will do nothing to reassure people in Muslim countries that Washington is not planning an anti-Islamic campaign. Perhaps most alarmingly, given the connotations the word has in the Middle East, he described America's response to terrorism as a "crusade". At other times, such as his speech at the memorial service at the National Cathedral, his words have been more statesmanlike. With the world paying great attention to his every word, the President and his speechwriters need to choose them very carefully.

Since last week, the national mood in America has begun to change. Although the majority still say they want a strong retaliation, whatever consequences that might entail, peace movements are becoming more vocal and calls for restraint from within America are becoming stronger. Mr Bush should listen to those, and to world opinion that is also calling for restraint. He must work with the UN to establish an international coalition for concerted action against the terrorist threat. It is vital that this coalition include Islamic nations, as well as Russia and China. Direct military reprisals must be limited to those against whom there is reasonable evidence of responsibility for the attacks. Most of all, the US needs to persuade Muslim nations that the war is against terrorism, not Islam. In defending its values, the US must be careful to also uphold them. The West, Islam and the Arabs are not evil. The vast majority of people want to live in peace and security. This is not a war between religions, nor a struggle between nations. As Israeli writer Amos Oz said, "this is a battle between fanatics for whom the end any end, be it religious, nationalistic or ideological sanctifies the means, and the rest of us who ascribe sanctity to life itself". It will not be won quickly, but must be won.