Newspapers in the United States have poured scorn on the decision by France, Germany and Belgium to block Nato plans to fortify Turkish defences ahead of a war in Iraq.

The organisation is facing "what may be its greatest crisis in a generation," writes the New York Times.

Bush is also "disappointed" with the French position

The newspaper says Turkey should "get what it needs" but notes the debate has become "a proxy" for the argument over whether Europe should be expected "merely to accede to American leadership".

France is "showing poor judgement," it continues, adding the fault also lies with the Bush administration's "with us or against us approach" which is also being "foolishly" applied to the US's European allies.

The Washington Post is more critical of the decision by France, Germany and Belgium to block the shipping of defensive equipment to Turkey.

The countries "have finally responded to Iraq's flagrant violation of United Nations disarmament orders by mounting an offensive," says an editorial.

'US target'

"Yet the target of their campaign is not Saddam Hussein but the United States - and the proximate casualties look to be not the power structures of a rogue dictator but the international institutions that have anchored European and global security."

The Washington Post thinks the real objective of France, Germany and "tiny" Belgium is to "obstruct council endorsement of the military intervention that the United States is preparing".

One result, said the paper, would be the "enfeebling of both Nato and the United Nations - the very disaster that Germany and France once feared the United States would cause".

On 10 February, the former US secretary of state Henry Kissinger wrote in the Washington Post that Iraq has provoked "the gravest crisis in the Atlantic since its creation".

'Catastrophe'

"If the United States yields to the threat of a French veto, or if Iraq, encouraged by the action of our allies, evades the shrinking non-military options still available, the result will be a catastrophe for the Atlantic alliance and for the international order," he said.

The San Francisco Chronicle says France, Germany and Belgium have "embarrassed" President Bush.

France is virtually an enemy of the United States New York Post

"These long-time allies want to make sure the United States makes a sincere effort to exhaust alternatives to war, such as more rigorous inspections, a reasonable posture shared by many Americans," said an editorial.

But under a headline: "The Axis of Appeasement," the Chicago Tribune says "these are busy days for those who do not want to confront Saddam".

"The solidarity has fractured. Hussein has other nations playing his game: delay, deny, delude, divide," it said.

The New York Post blamed the division in Nato on France. "France is virtually an enemy of the United States," it said.

"All of this is the result of French machinations that are cynical even beyond the craven standards of that nation's traditional foreign policy," an editorial said.

"The plan (involving UN peacekeepers and inspectors) is clearly designed to keep Saddam in power," it added.

In a news analysis, the newspaper's correspondent in France said the "arrogant" leaders of France have "clearly forgotten the sacrifices Americans made (in France)".

'Economic interests'

The Pittsburgh Post Gazette saw an economic motive for some European countries' reluctance to throw their weight behind the US

"Some of the opposition clearly reflects European trade and investment relations with that nation (Iraq) that would be disrupted by a war and its political aftermath," it said.

"A related fear is that if America leads the way in the war, American companies will claim most of the spoils of the war in the form of oil concessions."

The newspapers concluded that "if this sounds paranoid" Americans "should recognise that the relationship between economics, politics and military is real".