The threat from Saddam, such as it was, may have gone, but last week's events in Madrid showed that the threat from terrorism is a great, if nor greater than ever.

EXACTLY a year ago to the day, Tony Blair stood shoulder to shoulder with President Bush on the Portuguese islands of the Azores, the two leaders united in presenting an ultimatum to Saddam Hussein: surrender his weapons of mass destruction or face war and destruction.

Both Blair and Bush agreed it was the moment of truth, not just for Saddam, but for the United Nations, in showing it stood firm against a murderous dictator. Saddam was a threat to world peace, through his pursuit of weapons of mass destruction and as a major sponsor of international terrorism, and his regime must be destroyed. But both Saddam and the UN were found wanting, and within days the bombs were raining down on Baghdad.

Twelve months on, Iraq may be in chaos but Saddam is gone, and whatever danger he posed through those elusive WMD has been neutralised. But far from a collective sigh of relief as the threat diminishes, not since the early days of the Cold War and fears of an imminent nuclear attack has tension been higher.

Even before last week's devastating explosions in Madrid, security was being raised to unprecedented levels. Following the bomb attacks, rail marshals are being introduced on trains and plainclothes police are patrolling the London Underground. For many people, it's not so much a question of if another attack will occur, but when.

"It was highly dangerous to support the Americans in Iraq, and this is what a lot of people in Spain are saying now," says Peter Smith, chairman of the Teesside Against the War coalition. "They're saying that 90 per cent of them didn't want the war, and, although we don't know who was responsible yet, it looks like these are the consequences."

Standing alongside Bush and Blair at that Azores meeting was the then-prime minister of Spain, Jose Maria Aznar. In the face of widespread domestic opposition to the war, Aznar joined Bush's Coalition of the Willing, and many of his countrymen feel he thereby put Spain directly in the firing line for terrorist attack. In the immediate aftermath of last week's explosions, the Spanish government was eager to identify Basque separatist group Eta as the likely culprits, but as this has given way to a growing belief that al Qaida was responsible, so hostility towards the government has increased, culminating in Sunday's shock election defeat for the ruling Popular Party. While Blair has the comfort of knowing his main political rivals did not oppose the war, it is difficult to take Sunday's poll as anything but a rebuke for him and Bush, as well as for Aznar.

But the question of whether Britain's involvement in the war in Iraq has made us a likely target is not a straightforward one, according to David George, politics lecturer and expert in the Middle East at Newcastle University. Even before the invasion of Iraq, Britain had been singled out by Osama bin Laden as a potential victim, and there is a widespread belief that there were plans to fly a plane into the House of Commons as part of the September 11 attacks, he says.

"The UK is on the list of major targets for Islamists and I don't think the invasion of Iraq makes the slightest difference. The obvious reason is that Britain participated in the attack on Iraq over Kuwait in the first Gulf War, to say nothing of being the US's major ally over the years." But one consequence of the war on Iraq has been to divert attention away from Afghanistan, where the situation is still unstable, according to Dr Rhiannon Talbot, law lecturer and an expert on terrorism, also at Newcastle University.

"The ongoing problems and the instability in that part of the world will continue to provide opportunities for terrorism, and we have also created a similar situation in Iraq," she says. "It is giving a political motivation to those who are ill-disposed towards the West anyway.

"We have chosen to go in and take out a state we don't like, and while I don't think that was a bad thing in terms of world peace, it is the means of getting there that has provided encouragement for some people."

Foreign Secretary Jack Straw yesterday insisted that Britain's role in the war in Iraq had not made it a bigger target for terrorism, but Dr Talbot says the hostility generated towards America is bound to rub off on its closest ally.

"It is quite simplistic in many ways, because it doesn't take into account the level of threat before. We were always a target, the question is, has that been exacerbated by the war in Iraq? It is very difficult to asses that but my gut reaction is that it probably has. It has caused so much hostility and given so much justification for hating the West. I think we can safely say we're high on the list - we're certain targets." But she says that even with the knowledge the next major terrorist atrocity could be on our shores, we should still insist the Government acts within the rule of law.

"The threat may well be there, but I think we should be cautious in how we respond and not just give the Government carte blanche to do whatever it likes and assume they will act in a proper manner. By using your powers in an abusive way, you can alienate more people, and they could become motivated to attack you.

'WE have got to have strong counter-terrorism powers, but they need to be used in a sophisticated and intelligent way, and we need to question whether the Government's response is appropriate in areas such as indefinite detention, and I'm not convinced that it is."

Mr George says warnings over the last 12 months, by Straw, Home Secretary David Blunkett and Metropolitan Commissioner Sir John Stevens, among others, suggest that a major attack on the UK is considered likely, with London being the probably target.

"We must expect what in the jargon is called a major casualty attack, and the phrase used by many of them is not it's not a question of if but when," he says. "There is an expectation that it will be a suicide bombing, but we can't rule anything out."

He says the best guard against an attack is not the marshals patrolling trains, but the use of intelligence, hence the huge expansion in the ranks of MI5 announced last month. "We can hope that it will minimise the chances, but no country in the world can be immune to it altogether," he adds.