Years ago, as Cold Warriors went about justifying America's war in Southeast Asia, a common train of logic was known as the Domino Theory. This held that the Communists could not be allowed to seize Laos, or Cambodia, or South Vietnam, else they would then go on to seize Thailand, and the Philippines, and eventually all of Southeast Asia.

It was lunacy, of course. But that has not stopped neoconservatives, 40 years later, from espousing a similar sort of domino theory of how the world works. This time it is democracy, not communism, that is to be on the rise, and (according to the Bush Administration and its ideologues) establishing a beachhead of democracy in Iraq will force the rest of the despotic Middle East to mend its authoritarian ways.

The world didn't work that way 40 years ago, and it doesn't today. The problem with this theory ­ OK, one of the many problems with this theory ­ is that it ignores the fact that the region in question is comprised of many different nations with distinct histories, cultures, and political processes. Thus, while there is no denying that this has been a very good month for democratic reform in the Middle East, the notion that it is due primarily to recent pro-democratic pressure from Washington, or even that substantial progress has been made, needs a reality check.

Most notable, thus far, has been the temporary collapse of the pro-Syrian government in Lebanon, a cataclysm due primarily to the assassination of former prime minister Rafik Hariri. Hariri's murder remains unsolved, but it has widely been assumed to be the work of Syria ­ although Syria denies it. (And, in fairness, it could as easily be a brilliant ploy by the CIA or Israel's Mossad.) Regardless, the upshot was a crowd of 25,000 Beirut protesters, in a rally that had been banned by the military, demonstrating for the end of Syria's military presence in Lebanon. By day's end, the government had fallen.

Events in Lebanon eclipsed movement in Syria itself, where leaders had already promised a pullout of Syria's military from Lebanon by year's end ­ not soon enough for the Lebanese protesters, but a significant concession nonetheless. And later, Syrian authorities handed Saddam Hussein's half-brother over to American and Iraqi authorities, a rare display of cooperation with occupying American authorities in Iraq.

Meanwhile, in Egypt, Hosni Mubarak, the 24-year dictator who is widely believed to be grooming his son to replace him, announced a request for constitutional amendments to allow multi-party presidential elections.

It's tempting to lump together developments in the three countries, add the elections in Iraq and locally in Saudi Arabia, and point to them all as evidence that the Arab world is embracing the calls for democracy and freedom President Bush has made a centerpiece of his Inaugural Address and subsequent speeches.

But slow down.

The opposition movements in Lebanon and Egypt long predate George Bush's calls for Middle East democracy ­ and for most of their history, particularly in Egypt, the United States has sided with the government and against opposition critics. Egypt has had both pro-democracy and Islamist movements, objects of political repression, jail, and torture, for over a half-century ­ spanning the dictatorships of Mubarak, Anwar el-Sadat, and Nasser. Even today, Egyptian opposition leaders say they don't want the help of America, For good reasons, they don't trust us.

Those same opposition leaders also caution that Mubarak's proposal sounds more sweeping than it is. Unless opposition political parties are free to organize without repression, and have equal access to what is largely state-controlled media, any presidential election there would be a farce. Simply having an election is no evidence of democracy ­ as we saw a month ago in Iraq.

In Lebanon, the famously splintered populace, numbering Christians, Druze, and Muslims, fought a vicious civil war from 1975 to 1990, and Syria has dominated the military and political landscape since. When Syria pulls out, Hezbollah ­ organizers of a much larger demonstration a week after the government fell ­ will take over. Hezbollah is considered a terrorist group by the State Department ­ not exactly progress. The assassination has united the opposition, but Omar Karami, the prime minister who resigned, was reinstated a week later. Syria still controls the presidency, the military, and the intelligence services in Lebanon, and forming any new government not dominated by Hezbollah or other pro-Syrian forces may be very difficult.

All these events represent clear progress in the goal of a more democratic Middle East. But Washington isn't responsible for everything, and George Bush's new evangelism for democracy is no more than a minor contributing factor to the new developments. The policy of trying to incubate Middle Eastern democracy is, on its own terms, a worthy one ­ but such policies take years to incubate, not weeks.

Give credit where credit is due: to the courageous opposition ranks in Lebanon and Egypt, who've withstood for years the apparatus of state repression to make a stand for what they believe in. And they still have a long way to go.