Barring a major development, the situation in the “Greater Middle East” — defined by the Bush administration as the vast region from Morocco to Pakistan — will continue to play itself out with minimal US involvement until the inauguration of a new US president in January 2009.

The weakness of President Bush both at home and abroad comes at a troubling time when international leadership is direly needed to prevent the further deterioration, which could have catastrophic, lasting consequences for the region.

Far from adopting a conciliatory, broad-based approach to governing, President Bush has reacted to January’s Democratic takeover of Congress by digging in his heals — effectively preventing bipartisan solutions to a number of pressing domestic and foreign challenges.

At home, Bush has refused attempts at compromise with Democrats over the budget, health care, and energy. In fact, it is looking increasingly likely that the budget battle could result in a temporary government shutdown, which has not occurred since 1995.

Congress and the president have yet to reach accord on one of the 13 annual appropriations bills necessary to maintain government operations.

Bush ignored calls to alter course in Iraq — either through diplomacy or military withdrawals — and instead opted to escalate the conflict by increasing troop levels.

The results have been mixed at best. While the level of violence in some provinces, such as Anbar, has dropped recently, 2007 has already been the bloodiest year for US troops — with more battle deaths already than in any previous year.

In Afghanistan, there is growing alarm that American inattention has allowed Al-Qaeda and the Taleban to re-establish themselves in areas previously “liberated” by Afghan and international troops.

Violence has steadily increased against civilians and NATO troops alike. Opium production has soared; increased narcotics sales have reportedly fueled militias opposed to the Karzai government.

Last week’s alarming developments in Pakistan also represent another American setback.

The Bush administration has long maintained that the post-9/11 US-Pakistan alliance is a pillar of the war on terrorism. Washington has provided Islamabad $11 billion in assistance in recent years.

However, commentators have continually criticized Pakistan for failing to control its border areas that have been reportedly used as sanctuaries for extremists. Pervez Musharaff’s recent clampdown has triggered unprecedented criticism of both Pakistan and Bush. The White House has urged Pakistan to hold elections and warned Musharraf about his behavior, but few believe Washington will cut Islamabad’s assistance package.

The Bush administration has bet too heavily on Musharraf, and can ill afford to lose an ally in such a volatile position.

The US is anxiously awaiting a resolution as to who will be Lebanon’s next president.

The result of this standoff could either demonstrate a path of reconciliation for Beirut and between the Arab nations, Iran, and the US, or it could result in a protracted disaster of either the political or military variety.

The recalcitrant US-Iran nuclear standoff continues. US-Turkish relations remain troubled over Kurdish PKK attacks and possible passage of a congressional resolution recognizing the World War I-era atrocities against Armenians as genocide.

Hope for an Israeli-Palestinian settlement is illusive, and the Hamas-Fatah divide has only deepened in recent months.

On all these problems, there seems little the Bush administration can do to prevent events from playing out. Clearly, resolution to any of these complicated problems is difficult even in the best of times. But with a woeful approval rating of 30 percent — and an unfavorable rating higher even than Richard Nixon in the midst of Watergate — the Bush administration finds itself being shaped by events, not shaping them.

It is openly acknowledged that the next US president will have a Herculean task of restoring order at home and abroad.

And thus far the prospective Democratic and Republican candidates have yet to inspire the masses. On the Democratic side, leading contenders include senators Hillary Clinton and Barak Obama, as well as 2004 vice presidential candidate John Edwards. Despite an uninspiring debate performance last week, Clinton currently is the frontrunner, given her experience and name recognition. Obama has promised a new direction and dialogue; on the international sphere he has indicated a willingness to talk to Iran.

Edwards is running a populist campaign, where prompt withdrawal from Iraq is the key foreign policy plank.

One could make a case that any of the five leading Republican candidates could eventually emerge as the party’s standard bearer.

Rudy Giuliani maintains a solid, yet shaky lead, largely attributable to his aggressiveness and leadership after the 9/11 attack on New York. Edwards, among others, has warned voters that Giuliani is “Bush on steroids” given his reliance on neoconservative advisers bent on confrontation with Iran and use of extra-constitutional interrogation techniques on suspected terrorists.

Sen. John McCain, who is committed to prosecuting the Iraqi war until “victory,” remains a formidable candidate, along with former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney and actor and former Sen. Fred Thompson. Perhaps the most intriguing candidate in the field from either party is former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee.

Huckabee has run a positive campaign which has only recently caught fire and media attention. A former Baptist preacher, Huckabee has solid conservative credentials and also appeals to moderate voters. Still, he has limited campaign resources and little foreign policy experience — both serious vulnerabilities.

Attention has turned away from President Bush. His lack of influence at home and abroad has created a power vacuum which barring a miracle at Annapolis or, more troubling, a surprise attack on Tehran, cannot be filled until after the next US election.

There has always been a concern over “lame duck” presidents because of the inability to effectively lead in times of crisis. But rarely has the lame duck period been as protracted, or potentially dangerous for the US and world, as the one that now exists.