President George Bush has pressed the need for an Israeli-Palestinian agreement and warned about the dangers posed by Iran during his eight-day tour of the Middle East which winds up in Saudi Arabia and Egypt. His determination to see progress between Israel and the Palestinians is welcome indeed, but almost certainly comes too late in his second term to carry any real conviction that it can be delivered upon before he goes.
His warning about Iran is by now an old story from this administration, which has systematically sought to contain or change the ruling regime there rather than engage with it. This too lacks credible delivery during his last year in office.
Given the centrality of the Israeli-Palestinian confrontation for other conflicts in the Middle East it is extraordinary that this should have been Mr Bush's first visit to Israel and the West Bank since he assumed office seven years ago. The explanation is to be found in his initial belief that little could be retrieved from the Camp David failure under president Clinton in 2000, in the 9/11 attacks which prioritised the "war on terror" and the invasion of Iraq and then in the long dominant neoconservative view that Israel is a strategic ally of the United States in the effort to forge a democratic transformation of the region.
The US peace initiative comes after each of these other objectives has failed to deliver as promised and following last year's consequentially profound shift of influence and focus from hawks to realists within the Bush administration. These Israeli-Palestinian talks are the major outcome of that shift of emphasis. But unfortunately they come at a time when all three political leaders directly concerned are at the weakest point of their time in office. Mr Bush himself is the proverbial lame duck in a dying administration. Israeli prime minister Ehud Olmert is trapped by right-wing allies ready to pounce on any hint of compromise, while Palestinian president Mahmoud Abbas presides over a pitifully fragile authority in the West Bank which has lost control of Gaza to Hamas.
It would be foolish to expect much from the negotiations in these circumstances. But the effort is nonetheless worthwhile. If it is to gather momentum it will require much more willingness by Mr Bush to pressurise Israel against extending settlements and illegal outposts in the West Bank. His message on this trip lacked bite and inspiration. Israeli moderates would be encouraged by a stronger US profile and a more hands-on involvement to find the courage for the necessary compromises on the core issues of security, final borders, Jerusalem, West Bank settlements, refugees and water. Otherwise they are perpetually hostage to the Israeli right wing.
Arab states are willing to join this endeavour, but not on the basis of isolating Iran as Mr Bush wants. They have more to gain by engaging with that state - not least with an increasingly critical Arab public opinion and media that is quite unconvinced by Mr Bush's belligerent attitude to Iran.