The Middle East and its surrounds have defined the Bush presidency. It was there that al-Qaeda was born, and most of the perpetrators of the atrocities of September 11, 2001, were Saudi Arabian. In Iraq, the President staked his reputation on the removal of Saddam Hussein and the subsequent conflict. His second term in office has witnessed a cold war between the United States and Iran that has profound implications for every country in the region. Yet George W. Bush himself did not make a full tour of the area until January this year, and the visit that he concluded yesterday is expected to be the last before his political retirement. His personal diplomacy on the spot has come late in the day.

Partly for that reason, not much has been expected of this exercise. Mr Bush went to Israel to salute its 60th birthday, moved on to Saudi Arabia, where he did not have much luck in convincing his hosts that they wanted to increase oil supplies, and has spent the weekend in Egypt, seeking to convince all concerned of his commitment to the peace process and engaging in the worthy task of assisting the Palestinian economy.

There has, though, been an air of unreality about these endeavours. The eyes of the world are moving away from Mr Bush towards his successor. Ehud Olmert, Israel's Prime Minister, is under siege at home over multiple corruption charges, and were he to be replaced by Benjamin Netanyahu then most Arab states would conclude that negotiations about an independent Palestine would be doomed. The Palestinian Authority is divided physically between the West Bank and Gaza with two rival administrations in office. The lofty ambitions articulated in Annapolis, Maryland, in November seem unattainable. Even Mr Bush has insisted only that he thinks he can see a Palestinian state “defined” by the end of his tenure.

The Middle East needs rather more than definitions (especially as they are almost certain to be disputed). But if Mr Bush can at least prevent matters from becoming worse, that would be of value to the next president.

There are lessons that senators McCain and Obama, the two from whom his successor is likely to be drawn, can learn from the past eight years. When Mr Bush entered office, his advisers were deeply pessimistic about the prospects for a comprehensive settlement in the Middle East and determined not to engage in the microdiplomacy that had been Bill Clinton's style. Mr Bush engaged with the Middle East from a distance, offering encouraging words, but giving the impression that he would not risk much capital on it. His approach was compounded by the reluctance of the Secretary of State, Colin Powell,to travel (he feared absence would weaken him in Washington's bureaucratic infighting). It has only been since late 2005 that Condoleezza Rice has earned her air miles and the President has been seen to be at the forefront of US efforts to broker peace.

The thrust of the Bush agenda is perfectly rational. The question is not the direction of policy but the energy with which it is pursued. The next president will have to hit the ground running if he is to have an impact. America is the indispensable actor in the Middle East and the president is the indispensable individual. The next presidential trip to the Middle East must be as soon after January 20, 2009, as possible.