I saw a Seinfeld episode once where the character George Constanza determined that every instinct he had was wrong. He adopted a strategy of doing the exact opposite of whatever his instinct was, in the hope that the opposite of what is wrong must be right. I don’t remember exactly how that worked out for him, but I think the strategy is relevant to U.S. policy in the Middle East. Whatever might have been said in favor of George W. Bush’s promotion of democracy in the Middle East, the actual elections that took place in Iraq, Iran, Lebanon, and Palestine did not work out well. In every case but Lebanon, a government was elected that was hostile to the United States and Israel, and which defined itself by that opposition. In Lebanon, an assassination and a war with Israel conspired to raise the influence of Hezbollah. In Iran, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad was elected. In Iraq, a sectarian, Iran-friendly government was elected. They were somewhat pliable to American influence, but not to the degree that was desired. Worse, they were ineffective at governance and failed to bring the country together. And, in Palestine, Hamas won the election which pretty much doomed any chance of near-term progress on the peace process.

Because Bush’s policies and agenda were so wrong-headed, it would be a mistake to consider these outcomes as irrational, or even as unambiguously negative. But they, in combination, plunged the region into a major funk. We can be as critical as is warranted about U.S. policy in the Middle East, but few people dispute that America is the ultimate peace-maker in the region. By that, I mean, peace will not come until America gets its policies right, because no one else has the influence to force compromises in the right places.

Someone looking for simple policy shifts that might be productive could be tempted to just adopt a strategy of doing the opposite of whatever the Bush administration did. And, while that is an oversimplification, it is not far from the strategy that is being employed by the Obama administration.

Where Bush refused to talk to adversaries, Obama challenges our adversaries to negotiate. Where Bush made secret agreements to let Israel expand their settlements, Obama forbids their expansion. Where Bush used every opportunity to denigrate Islam, Obama praises it. And, all of a sudden, you see things begin to change. The first indicator was the election in Lebanon where the Hezbollah coalition unexpectedly made no progress. Hopefully, on Friday, Iran will vote Ahmadinejad out of power. Perhaps, later this year, Iraq will have good elections that result in a better representation of the demographics of the country. And maybe that will help ease America’s withdrawal from a more stable country.

Palestine is still a big mess. But, with any luck, Obama will have removed several arguments that Israel uses against making any progress in the peace process. Without the insane ravings of Ahmadinejad and with Hezbollah’s power checked, Israeli hardliners will have a harder time convincing people (and themselves) that they are under siege. If they are forced to stop settlement expansion, the Israeli government can at least begin implementing the Road Map (or something like it). If Obama can convince Hamas to stop firing rockets into Israel, there will little salience to the argument that Obama’s more conciliatory policies have made Israel less safe.

Finally, as Obama plays good cop, Hillary plays bad cop. By her threat to nuke Tehran into the glass-age if they use nuclear weapons against Israel, she takes away another argument against concessions and peace.

Things are moving in a positive direction. And it’s mainly a matter of doing the opposite of whatever Bush and Cheney felt was the way to go.