It is under a cloud of heavy pessimism that U.S. President George W. Bush leaves for the Middle East, a region that one former administration official described as today being more dangerous, unstable and problematical for the United States than since before the 1973 Arab-Israeli war.

Speaking on condition of anonymity, the former high-ranking member of the Bush administration said that most of the trends are bad and are not likely to get better anytime soon. "That's the context under which the president departs," he said.

Painting a rather somber picture of the region, the former government official outlined the following facts: "There is no sign of political reconciliation in Iraq. Iran pursues its nuclear weapons program; 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…."

In short, said the former White House staffer, "as our Soviet colleagues used to say, the correlation of forces in the Middle East is moving against us. Most of our friends are confused and demoralized; most of our enemies are emboldened."

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 NIE is the National Intelligence Estimate, a joint report produced by all 16 U.S. intelligence agencies. The most recent such report stated that Iran had stopped producing nuclear material several years ago, only to be contradicted just days later by the Bush administration, which added to the confusion surrounding what exactly was going on with Iran's nuclear program.

"I think it would be fair to say that the U.S. policy against Iran has all but collapsed," said the former government official.

He added that President Bush's position was further weakened by the latest developments in American domestic politics.

"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."

Not since U.S. President Richard Nixon's 1974 visit to the Middle East has an American president visited the region with such real and perceived weaknesses.

Indeed, visits by U.S. presidents to the Middle East are few and far between. Since the end of World War II Harry S. Truman did not visit; Dwight D. Eisenhower went once; John F. Kennedy and Lyndon B. Johnson did not go. Nixon went twice; Gerald Ford didn't visit; Jimmy Carter went twice; there were no visits by Ronald Reagan; George H.W. Bush (41) went three times, including one trip that consisted of just a few hours in Riyadh; Bill Clinton traveled five times to the Middle East; and George W. Bush (43) six times.

However, it has to be stated that one of G.W. Bush's trips consisted of landing on an aircraft carrier when he declared "mission accomplished." And another two trips were quick surprise visits to Iraq to wish the troops well for the Thanksgiving and Christmas.

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 what is revealing in this instance is what is not being mentioned by the White House spokesman; that of achieving a two-state solution by the end of the year, as the president had intended. 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 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 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."

Indeed, it is hard to see how the president can realign these two diverging universes in just eight days, of which hardly three will be spent in Israel and the West Bank.