It may have been on the verge of dawn, but Professor Paul Rogers was alert and taking in every nuance of the first strikes on Baghdad - and more importantly its leadership.

Sitting in his lodgings on the edge of Loch Ness in Scotland, where he is undertaking a review of academic services, he listened to the radio and watched the television as American and British warplanes screamed across the skies above Baghdad and the no-fly zone in Southern Iraq.

Despite predicting in the Telegraph & Argus on Saturday exactly to the day when war was likely to begin, Prof Rogers said he felt the real, main attack on Iraq was yet to come - and people, particularly the Iraqi people, would be shocked by its ferocity.

He had said that the first elements of the war would be between March 20 and 28, but today, reflecting in Inverness on the first strikes in this long-expected war, he said the first skirmishes were simply the military and politicians seeing a quick opportunity to try to oust Saddam and his henchmen.

"The best guess is that this was an opportunity to try to assassinate Saddam Hussein taken quickly based on intelligence they have received. But it seems that may have failed."

One of Saddam's sons has been talking on the radio and Saddam - or one of his many lookalikes - has already been on TV encouraging the Iraqi people to stand firm. Whether that was today, recorded weeks ago or even a double of the leader, matters not to some degree, the Iraqi military still has to be forced to surrender.

And Prof Rogers believes that will only occur when that massive strike is launched.

"What it wasn't was the start of the war on a full-scale," he said.

The military have been planning for months when to start their bombing. The most likely date was thought to be next Tuesday or Wednesday when the phases of the moon would help the airforce and soldiers carry out their attacks and the worst of the sandstorms - the desert storms - were over.

But this is a war clearly led by the politicians intent on moving fast and the military will have to meet the needs of their political masters.

Prof Rogers has his finger on the pulse of the military build-up and was speaking to contacts at the heart of RAF Fairford in Gloucestershire only a few hours ago, where massive B-52 bombers sit on the tarmac awaiting the green light to lumber down the runaway - target Baghdad.

"Despite what the TV news was saying there has been no sign of the B-52s being armed. The best guess was the original plan was to lead the way with a huge attack tonight or possibly later."

That bombardment would have been - and is still likely to be - incredibly fierce, not seen in the Gulf before, to shock the leadership, the military and its people into quick capitulation.

"One or two analysts say there could be one or two substantial raids before they begin the ground war," Prof Rogers said.

"That would entail two to three nights of huge raids, like nothing we have seen before, with ground troops going in almost immediately. These raids would be so fierce and create such a response from the military that the leadership would collapse and the Allied troops would, in effect, be an occupying force."

But surprisingly, the excursions today may count against the Allies.

"To some extent, they have lost the element of surprise, in terms of the military, by carrying out these small raids first."

Whatever, the troops will begin trying to disarm Saddam tonight.

But what impact will it have on us at home? It all seems so far away, images of places we have never been to, targeting a country some people couldn't even pinpoint on a map.

Prof Rogers believes direct attacks at home are unlikely immediately and certainly, the Iraqi regime probably won't have the capability of launching a deadly attack against the British people.

"It does seem very unlikely, there has been no evidence to suggest they are likely to, or have the capability to carry out attacks here."

But that doesn't mean there isn't a longer-term threat.

The former head of the University of Bradford's Peace Studies Department has warned that any conflict in the Gulf could be a propaganda victory for Al-Qaeda and could swell their ranks particularly with those who detest what they see as the decadent West led by a Texan intent on controlling Middle Eastern oil.

"If the Americans go ahead and destroy the regime, the prospects are there for Al-Qaeda to launch attacks."

He feels they may be more likely to hit soft American targets, lone soldiers in the Gulf, and the like - at least in the short-term.

But taking over, controlling a strategic state in the heart of the Middle East even through a client regime of Washington could have massive implications for us all - and could be a defining point in history with us all watching over our shoulders for any terrorist activity.

"If you are a major state like the US taking over an Arab country, which is what is going to happen, then the reaction will be an increase in anti-American paramilitary groups. We are likely to see that over a three to five year timespan.

"The sea-change of destroying a regime and occupying a country may have a long-term impact for us all."

Iraq War latest from our US bureau