The British Prime Minister, Mr Tony Blair, continues to punch above his weight for Britain. He will travel to Washington next Wednesday in upbeat mood about the prospects for the revival of the Middle East peace process.
Senior British sources were happy enough to encourage this benign scenario yesterday following Mr Blair's bumpy ride through Syria, Jordan, Jerusalem and Gaza. They were certainly aware of a very different "take" on the week's events.
Inside Number 10, there was inevitable discomfort at finding Wednesday's public dressing down by Syria's President Assad was followed by similar treatment in a British press less than overwhelmed by Mr Blair's latest diplomatic mission.
"Another day, another plea, another rebuff", ran the headline in the Guardian, to an accompanying editorial lamenting the impact of US carpet-bombing of Taliban defences north of Kabul and a US failure "to curb Ariel Sharon's parallel excesses" on any remaining illusion of Islamic solidarity with the international coalition.
"One of the biggest victims could yet turn out to be Tony Blair," the paper concluded. "He went out on a limb for Mr Bush, but his limited ability to control events was on humiliating show in the Middle East this week."
It is not hard to understand Mr Blair's frustration with his critics. In the immediate aftermath of September 11th, they feared he was "too gung-ho" for war, fretted that his enthusiasm would spur rather than restrain a US administration sorely tempted to lash out in anger.
Now they seem equally ready to dismiss his efforts to forge a bridge over the "gulf of misunderstanding" between the Arab and Muslim worlds and the West.
Nor is criticism confined to predictable sections of the left. Sir Malcolm Rifkind, a former Tory Foreign Secretary, said Mr Blair had been "very unwise to undertake this trip" and had "not only embarrassed himself but made life much more difficult for moderate Arab leaders".
Mr Blair insisted it was better to "get your hands dirty" than allow the situation to be driven by extremists, but the London Times countered it was dangerous to be seen getting nowhere. He appeared "like a driven man" and needed to be sure he was "husbanding his authority" for likely harder times ahead.
The Daily Mail meanwhile thought Mr Blair should hand over to professional diplomats and content himself to take charge where it mattered most - "at home".
Mr Blair's counter is that the very suggestion pre-supposes that continuing instability in the Middle East does not impinge directly on Britain's national interests, that the revival of the Middle East peace process and the war against terror are essential parts of the same jigsaw.
He won backing yesterday from Mr James Rubin, an Assistant Secretary of State in the Clinton administration. Whereas two years ago Mr Rubin might have agreed this was down to Washington alone, he felt if Americans were not "free to travel", it was good that Mr Blair was, and that the British Prime Minister "might well have a part to play in persuading the Prime Minister Sharon and Chairman Arafat to re-engage"
Unwavering in his view of Syria as a "state sponsor of terrorism", Mr Rubin said President Assad had previously demonstrated "no compunction about talking rubbish in front of famous people". However it might be necessary to endure this while progress was made behind closed doors.
Mr Blair's barely coded signal on returning to London was that it had been. That is the message he will impart to President Bush on Wednesday. Despite continuing fears that Mr Blair is over-stretching himself, expectation of movement in the Middle East will consequently be rising.