The official, who spoke on condition of anonymity, described the region today as being “more dangerous, unstable and problematical for the United States than since before the 1973 Arab-Israeli war”.

The former high-ranking member of the Bush administration said he did not think the president’s tour of six Middle East countries — including the UAE — would amount to very much because most leaders in the region had lost faith in the American president. "Arab heads of government — and especially this is pertinent with respect to our friends — have decisively made up their minds about the George W Bush administration; and their conclusions are profoundly critical regarding the administration policies and its competence."

A number of analysts lay the blame on what they say is a failed policy and “good versus evil simplistic ideological stubbornness that the American public seems to be increasingly turning against”, said Daniel Levy, senior fellow and director of the Middle East Policy Initiative at the New America Foundation. “Expect more of the confusion on Iran, optimism on Iraq….” said Levy, who also served as a senior advisor in the Israeli prime ministers’ office.

"There is no sign of political reconciliation in Iraq. Iran pursues its nuclear weapons programme; the Middle East peace prospects are probably the worst in at least 20 years; long-term trends in Afghanistan are not good; Pakistan may implode…," said the former administration official. On the issue of Iran pursuing its nuclear ambitions, he said: "There was no sign that the sanctions being considered by the Security Council against Iran would be immediate or effective. That was true before the NIE fiasco. Now there is no chance that sanctions will work."

The most recent NIE — the National Intelligence Estimate, a joint report produced by all 16 US Intelligence agencies — stated that Iran had stopped producing nuclear material several years ago, only to be contradicted just days later by the Bush administration. This only added to the confusion surrounding what exactly was going on with Iran's nuclear programme. "I think it would be fair to say that the US policy against Iran has all but collapsed," said the former government official. Not since President Richard Nixon's 1974 visit to the Middle East has an American president visited the region with such real and perceived weaknesses. As pointed out by the former government official: "One has to ask what Arab leader will venture to side with such a weak president?"

President Bush's trip to the Middle East was initially meant to follow up the Annapolis peace effort. But as Levy points out, “Barely six weeks after the Annapolis conference, the process is already stuck and the American leadership has again come up short. “

More likely than not this Middle East trip will focus more on Iran's growing influence in the region and on the global war on terror than on anything else. But, ask some analysts: Will the region be listening all that much to the president's statements? A White House spokesman affirms that just by being there the president advances the peace process. But it's hard to see how that can come about when the administration and certain forces in the Middle East are on completely different wavelengths. Here's how Israel's Jerusalem Post newspaper sums it up: "What is becoming increasingly clear since the Annapolis meeting is that there are two different universes. There is the universe of Annapolis meetings and Paris conferences, of handshakes and speeches. And then there is the universe of Hamas entrenchment in Gaza, arms smuggling from Egypt, Qassam rockets, IDF military action. The two universes are spinning in separate orbits and they do not interact." Unless, that is, the president invests real political capital in pushing an Israeli-Palestinian deal, or gives his secretary of state full backing to do so.

 Claude Salhani is Editor of the Middle East Times and a political analyst in Washington