US President George W. Bush still talks of victory in Iraq, peace in the Middle East and dawning democracy in Lebanon, although many in the region see only a series of disasters with worse to come.

Even Jordan's King Abdullah, who will host this week's talks between Bush and Iraqi Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki in Amman, has sounded dark warnings of actual or potential civil wars erupting among Iraqis, Palestinians and Lebanese.

"The United States is facing a deep crisis in Iraq, Palestine, Lebanon and in its drive for democracy," said Abdul-Bari Atwan, editor of the London-based al-Quds al-Arabi daily. "Everywhere you look, it's a huge mess."

A fragile truce that took hold in Gaza this week is one bright spot — achieved without visible US involvement.

Moderate Arab states have long pleaded with the United States to do more to settle the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, which they see as the region's single most corrosive issue, fuelling Islamist militancy and threatening their survival.

"I keep saying Palestine is the core," King Abdullah said on Sunday, linking it with problems in Iraq, Lebanon and Syria.

Bush has never made Middle East peace his top priority, mostly blaming Palestinian violence for lack of any progress and backing Israel's government strongly.

Many Arabs say a more even-handed US approach could ease crises across the region, including in Lebanon where Hezbollah and its allies are challenging a shaky pro-Western government.

US policy on Iraq may be in flux after stinging Republican defeats in mid-term Congressional elections, attributed largely to the growing unpopularity of the Iraq war with US voters.

A panel led by former Secretary of State James Baker and ex-congressman Lee Hamilton will present recommendations on Iraq to Bush in December. They are expected to include a call to seek the help of neighbouring Syria and Iran in stabilising Iraq.

However, Bush rejected any direct US talks with Iran yesterday, saying it must first suspend nuclear fuel enrichment.

The White House now accepts that sectarian bloodshed has thrust Iraq into a "new phase", but not the civil war that UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan says might already be reality.

Bush said yesterday the hand of al-Qaeda lay behind the sectarian violence in Iraq, and deflected talk of civil war.

National Security Adviser Stephen Hadley, accompanying Bush to a NATO summit in Latvia, said Bush and Maliki would not lay out any new strategy when they wind up talks tomorrow.

Whether any US policy switch could brake Iraq's bloody slide into civil strife and possible break-up is debatable.

"The simple reality is that there is nothing on God's green earth that anyone can do to put things right in Iraq," Patrick Clawson of the Washington Institute for Near East Policy said.

"The sectarian and ethnic conflicts are so bad that you have to recognise the situation will be horrific for months to come."

He said Bush's talks with Maliki were likely to focus on training the Iraqi army to replace US troops and on Baghdad's recent high-level contacts with Tehran and Damascus.

"The most dramatic thing Bush could bring would be a phased withdrawal plan, which could help address the concerns of those who fear a long-term US stay in Iraq," he said.

Paul Salem, director of the Carnegie Middle East Centre in Beirut, said it was not yet clear whether Bush would change his "stay the course" policy in Iraq any time soon.

If Bush dropped his "with us or against us" stance, an array of carrots and sticks could bring Syria and Iran into the game.

"Iran has already made its gains, with the US elimination of its two main enemies, Saddam Hussein and the Taliban," he said. "It will have its hands full dealing with its side of the situation in Iraq as the Americans reduce their presence." — Reuters