President Barack Obama deserves credit for keeping his promise to work for peace in the Middle East from the earliest days of his administration. Unfortunately, the results so far have proven less than encouraging. In fact, some recent trends look downright ominous.

On all sides, American efforts have run into embarrassing setbacks. Much global attention has focused on the spat between Washington and Jerusalem over the growth of Israeli settlements on the West Bank and Jerusalem. But Obama’s efforts to pressure the other side are running into stiff resistance — and much worse.

Obama planned to use his verbal gifts of persuasiveness to persuade all sides to start with small gestures of reconciliation. All the players would then develop the mutual trust required for the push toward the ultimate prize, peace. It hasn’t worked out that way.

The first major setback came during a humiliating visit to Saudi Arabia by the American president. The incident received little attention, since it happened hours before Obama’s headline-monopolizing speech to Muslims from Cairo. Obama asked Saudi King Abdullah to give him a token of good will to show Israelis as he publicly pressured them to freeze settlement activity. The Saudi’s answer was a most definitive “No.”

In Washington on July 31, the Saudis held up their rejection of Obama’s plan before the world’s cameras. In a joint press conference with Saudi Foreign Minister Prince Saud al-Faisal, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton diplomatically called on “Arab states, including our friends in Saudi Arabia, to work with us to take steps to improve relations with Israel, to support the Palestinian Authority and to prepare their people to embrace the eventual peace between the Palestinians and the Israelis.” Clinton maintained the shadow of a smile on her face as the prince cavalierly dismissed Obama’s approach, saying, “confidence-building measures will not bring peace.”

Even more troubling are developments inside Fatah, the more moderate Palestinian faction, the one the world backs because it favors coexistence with Israel in contrast with Hamas, whose charter calls for Israel’s destruction.

Fatah, the party that controls the Palestinian Authority, just held its first convention in two decades in Bethlehem. In advance of the gathering, Fatah officials displayed a troubling tendency toward renewed radicalism. The aim is to drum up popular support among the Palestinian public.

In an effort to top their rival Hamas in their perceived commitment to Palestinian statehood, Palestinian moderates are leaving behind their moderation.

Mohammed Dahlan, once a favorite of Washington and a top Fatah man in Gaza, told a Palestinian TV interviewer that it is a mistake to think Fatah wants Hamas to accept Israel’s existence. “We don’t demand that Hamas recognize Israel because the Fatah movement does not recognize Israel even today,” he explained. The disheartening exchange can be seen online at tinyurl.com/ks7gnf, where Dahlan also explains the need to show the world an image of moderation with a government “that is acceptable to the international community.”

Another leading Fatah man sounded less than moderate in an interview with al-Quds al-Arabi, a top pan-Arab newspaper. Former Palestinian Labor Minister Rafik Natsheh said Fatah “does not recognize Israel’s right to exist” and it has not abandoned violence in pursuit of its objectives. If that is the case, the peace process is a charade, and peace will prove impossible to achieve.

On the Israeli side, Obama has obtained some concessions, but new problems are emerging. Israel has removed checkpoints, and Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu reluctantly agreed to the two-state solution. But friction remains. Although most Israelis are no fans of the settlements whose growth Obama wants stopped, fears that the U.S. president is not evenhanded are undermining Israeli trust in the process.

The issue of settlement construction on the West Bank will ultimately reach a resolution. Construction in Jerusalem is another matter. In fact, Jerusalem is the most emotionally charged issue in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. That’s why it is surprising that Obama already chose to delve into that piece of radioactive terrain.

On paper, the peace plan looked pretty good: Sparks of goodwill would start a chain reaction of trust and confidence that would lead to peace. But setting off sparks in the desert is a perilous activity. Obama’s well-intentioned ideas could easily turn to disaster if the administration neglects to decisively put out the new fires of extremism already visible in the horizon.

— Frida Ghitis writes about global affairs for The Miami Herald.