One of the fascinating developments taking place before our eyes these days is the evolution of America's power and presence in the Middle East - though it remains to be seen if this is a truly constructive change in policy or merely a temporary cosmetic repackaging of failed old ways.

Two important points should be noted: American power is a constant factor in the region, regardless of whether one likes or dislikes how it is applied; and public perceptions of the United States throughout the Middle East are not fixed in stone, but rather respond in tandem to evolving American policies.

Changes in American policies and rhetoric are already triggering intriguing responses from different parts of the Middle East, as we can see in four separate issues: the situations in Lebanon, Palestine-Israel, Iran, and American attitudes toward Islam and Muslims.

Many analysts have suggested that President Barack Obama's speech in Cairo a week ago played a role in promoting the ascendancy of "moderate" or "pro-Western" voters in the elections in Lebanon and Iran this week. There is a link for sure, but I suspect the cause-and-effect relationship is the opposite of what many American and Arab commentators are saying.

If we look at public opinion in this region and the policies and words of the American leadership, we find that change has occurred first and more clearly in the US than it has in the Middle East. The more accommodating tone and some of the adjusted policies of the Obama administration are largely a response to realities on the ground.

The signs of change are real, if still limited in scope: Sending rhetorical love notes to Iran, dropping uranium enrichment-linked preconditions on talks with Iran, sending envoys to Syria, lowering the rhetoric on Hizbullah in Lebanon, speaking out forcefully on the unacceptability of continued Israeli settlement activity, and making dramatic public diplomacy gestures on American relations with Islamic societies.

Sincere people can disagree over whether the changes in US policy are a sensible reconfiguration reflecting acknowledgment that the old policies did not work in America's interest; or are a response to the widespread opposition to the US that defines large swaths of public opinion in our region. My guess is that it is a combination of the two.

Since Obama took office, a more realistic, less ideological bunch of political managers in Washington surveyed US policy in the Middle East, saw it was not working well, and recognized the ability and willingness of people and governments throughout the region to stand up to the US and its proxies. So they started to make changes that could respond more rationally to the interests of the US as well as the principal parties in the region, namely the Arabs, Iran, Turkey and Israel.

As the US started to adjust its rhetoric and policies, people and governments in the Middle East reciprocated the capacity to act sensibly. Even Hamas leader Khaled Meshaal, in his statements in Cairo earlier this week, acknowledged the new tone and approach in Washington, and spoke more about diplomatic possibilities than eternal resistance.

In Lebanon, where the US-backed March 14 coalition won last week's parliamentary elections, analysts disagreed over whether Obama's lofty rhetoric on Islam and Arab-Israeli peace-making played a role in the victory. My sense of US attitudes toward Lebanon is that in both the Obama speech and the recent visits to Beirut by Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and Vice President Joe Biden, we witnessed a clear toning down of their rhetoric against Iran, Syria and Hizbullah. As the US has changed its attitude toward Iran and Syria, it has also pulled back to some extent from its brass knuckles-style diplomacy in Lebanon.

A more relaxed regional context, in which, most notably, the US, Syria, Iran and Saudi Arabia spent more time recently exploring diplomatic opportunities than plotting new bombing targets and sanctions, has triggered both the toned down rhetoric from Washington and the revived dynamism of centrist politics in the Arab world and Iran. Life on the edge, in a climate of perpetual brinksmanship and confrontation, has proven both uncomfortable and widely unsustainable for most players in the Middle East, so wisely they are exploring alternative ways.

It is comforting to witness the capacity for real change in the United States and among Arabs and Iranians. It is also refreshing to hear so many in the region wonder whether the softer, gentler Obama approach is eliciting reciprocal common sense from different parts of the Middle East. Transformative moments like this one remind us of how important it is to acknowledge two important realities: public opinion, popular perceptions and foreign policies are intimately linked in a perpetual embrace that sees them evolve together; and, it is both immature and inaccurate to ascribe all good or bad things to one side or the other.