George W. Bush has managed to cut himself off from the reality of the Middle East, sealed into his self-assured righteousness. However, despite the indifference of the United States to various on-going sets of negotiations, these talks are continuing and moving ahead, with varying degrees of success.
Bush's chilling mistake is to be so clear about who he regards as the enemies of the US, and to make explicit that his administration will not talk to such organisations or countries.
He has managed to marginalise the world's sole superpower in much of the Middle East, where it has played a significant part in the past, and should be playing a much more constructive part at present.
The most obvious case was the formation of a new Lebanese government in Doha last week, when the Qataris successfully brought Hezbollah and its allies into an agreement with the March 14 coalition headed by Sa'ad Hariri.
This agreement broke the 18-month long deadlock in Lebanese politics, although it did not solve the underlying problem of how Hezbollah should fit into the new Lebanon.
Nonetheless it has created a very popular breathing space in which people can plan again, but it was done without American support.
Exactly at the time that the talks were underway in Doha and were critically poised, Bush spoke at the World Economic Forum in Sharm Al Shaikh, and totally distanced himself from what was happening.
He said: "We stand with the people of Lebanon. ... opposing Hezbollah terrorists, funded by Iran. ... Hezbollah militias are the enemy of a free Lebanon".
He did not mention the Doha talks at all, yet despite his uncompromising views, Hezbollah is now part of the new government in Lebanon, and the Lebanese are able to find their own way to talk to the Hezbollah leaders and find a negotiated way forward to a more stable future.
Turning to the core issue of Palestine, the Palestine National Authority is crippled by the split between Hamas and Fatah, which makes any peace deal impossible to implement.
If Bush genuinely wanted to push his Annapolis peace process forward, he would take an interest in reuniting the two Palestinian sides. Instead he says, "All nations in the region must stand together in confronting Hamas, which is attempting to undermine efforts at peace with acts of terror and violence."
He has forbidden any US official to talk to Hamas, but even Israel has refused to fall into line with Bush's attempt to isolate Hamas and has been conducting a dialogue with Hamas through the Egyptians. These talks seem to be running into trouble but even if they fail, they will have helped to show both sides what the other will need if they are to find peace.
On a different track, Syria and Israel have been conducting a dialogue with Turkish mediation on how they might find a peace deal.
The Syrians have offered complete peace for a return of all the occupied land in the Golan Heights, and have agreed to various military re-assurances so that north Israel is not dominated by Syrian troops on the mountains overlooking the Sea of Galilee.
Yet as these details are being hammered out by Syria and Israel, American diplomats still insist that Syria is an ally of Iran and should be shunned.
The US sees isolation of Syria as its main weapon against Bashar Al Asad's government, but there is no regional support for the United States' attempts to isolate Syria. As a result, the Americans are stuck in limbo while others try to move ahead.
Where America has gone fundamentally wrong, is to categorise Iran as its main enemy in the Middle East. This perception has skewed American policy into a single framework, which in no way matches the reality of what is happening.
In Sharm Al Shaikh, Bush was characteristically outspoken: "to allow the world's leading sponsor of state terrorism to acquire the world's deadliest weapon would be an unforgivable betrayal of future generatations."
Yet all the GCC nations, which are essentially allies of the United States, although becoming increasingly embarrassed by its unilateral morality, are in regular and normal contact with Iran. The GCC has many points of disagreement with Iran, yet they maintain normal relations with Iran and work on the many points of agreement.
US confusion
Bush has confused talking with agreement, and he has confused principles with policy. It is perfectly possible for two opposing groups to sit down, talk and disagree.
They do not have to agree, but in a complicated world it is of great value to meet and see what can be done to move ahead, or reduce tension. It is the essence of constructive diplomacy to talk to the opposition and find a way forward, persuading the other side to move ahead.
And that will require specific policies, rather than general principles. Bizzarely, Bush and Ahmadinejad agree that "freedom is a universal right, the Almighty's gift to every man, woman and child on Earth," as Bush put said in Sharm Al Shaikh. But they have very different ideas about how that freedom might be implemented and protected.
America cannot stand aside from the Middle East. It should not indulge itself by sticking to simplistic anti-terrorism, as the sole basis of its policies in the region, and it must be ready to talk to anyone to explain its disagreement to their ideas.
Without American involvement, and commitment to support the various talks, lasting peace will remain out of reach. That may suit many Israelis, but it does not help the wider good.
