Critics of George W. Bush's Middle East policy are hoping for a change in direction once America's 43rd President has left the White House. The foreign offices of Europe all hope for more multilateralism. More realpolitik. Less sabre-rattling.

The critics have a problem, however. In reality, Team Bush has largely been following European approaches to foreign policy for most of the world's troublespot nations.

Take Pakistan. The “realist school” couldn't honestly disapprove of any aspect of Bush's dealings with Islamabad. American taxpayers have financed a military dictator in the hope that Musharraf will suppress the fundamentalists and provide logistical support for Nato operations in Afghanistan. Has this worked? No. Islamic militancy is mushrooming.

Musharraf has often bargained with the political patrons of the madrassas in order to stymie his democratic opponents. If he falls, the Pakistan people may see America as the nation that propped up the regime that introduced martial law and warped the constitution.

It's all too reminiscent of its relationship with the Shah of Iran in the 1970s. When it comes to present-day Iran, Team Bush has been patiently multilateralist. Washington allowed the years to pass as Europe promised to negotiate an end to Tehran's nuclear plans. As it became obvious that the talks were failing, the Americans turned to the United Nations. Russia and China have vetoed any significant action.

Something akin to neoconservatism has only really been pursued in Iraq. Even the keenest supporters of the war readily agree that dreadful mistakes have been made. Nonetheless, the tide is now turning. Violence has halved. The progress of the “surge” is increasingly apparent.

Rushing to judgment is hardwired into our 24/7 news culture, but it probably won't be possible to evaluate the mix'n'match Bush foreign policies for years ahead. The bungled road to a democratic Iraq has been far too bloody but it's now perfectly sensible to believe that Bush's pre-emptive war may have sown the seeds for what could be the least troubled nation of the region in a decade's time. The multilateral approach to Iran may leave us with a nuclear-armed Tehran terrorising Israel and holding the world to ransom over oil supplies.

When it comes to foreign policy the next US president has to remember that America is most effective when the world's only policeman is seen as strong, as in the immediate aftermath of the Iraq invasion. Libya disarmed. The Khan nuclear exchange programme was exposed. Syria withdrew from Lebanon. Problems multiplied when America looked unwilling to commit necessary troops to finish the first battles of the War on Terror. A weak America, tied down by do-nothing multilateralists, is the last thing our dangerous world needs.

Times Recommends

• Care in old age: we won’t pay, the State can’t
• Viewers’ choice: our talentless Everyman
• Memo to the poor: go forth and don’t multiply