President Obama made the cardinal mistake yesterday of stepping on his own message. His “winds of change” speech was supposed to formalize an historic shift in U.S. policy toward the Middle East. Instead, Obama managed to put the spotlight on the one thing in the region that seems impervious to change: the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

Grabbing the headlines were a set of new principles Obama introduced late in his speech for reframing stalled peace negotiations. His call for Israel to withdraw to its pre-1967 borders drew a swift rebuke from Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, with whom Obama meets today at the White House. Merits aside, the controversy over this oddly-timed change in U.S. policy has overshadowed the new doctrine the president meant to announce to the world: America henceforth will back reform and democracy in the region.

Conservatives predictably have hailed this as no change at all, merely a restatement of George W. Bush’s “freedom agenda” for the Middle East. But there’s a crucial difference: the impetus for economic and political change in the region is now coming from the ground up – from its long-suffering people, not from Washington. In fact, by defusing tensions between the United States and the Muslim world, Obama probably made it easier for indigenous movements seeking freedom and democracy to arise in the region.

The Arab revolt is widely seen as legitimate because it is not, in fact, an American project. Obama made clear in his speech that Washington is catching up to events in the Middle East, not leading them.

It’s odd that no one in the White House thought to apply the same lesson to the Israeli-Palestinian issue. If the parties to the conflict aren’t themselves motivated to make peace, no amount of outside pressure from the United States, nor any set of innovative “parameters” for negotiations imported from Washington will break the deadlock.

Unfortunately, the flap over Obama’s apparent revision of long-standing U.S. policy toward the conflict reinforces the myth – fostered by Arab dictators and the many U.S. Middle East experts who have invested their careers in peace processing – that Israeli occupation of Arab lands is the region’s core “problem.” Yet the region’s long-suffering people are writing a new narrative that focuses not on Israel, but on the corrupt and despotic rulers who have smothered their aspirations for individual dignity, economic opportunity, and self-determination.

In aligning U.S. policy with these aspirations, Obama ended the bankrupt policy of propping up friendly autocrats. He also restored the missing “d” in his strategic trinity of defense, diplomacy and development – democracy.

The president reaffirmed his view that Muammar Qaddafi must go, and he had suitably harsh words for Iran’s clerical dictatorship, which is intensifying its repression to keep an increasingly restive society under wraps. For consistency’s sake, Obama insisted that pro-U.S. rulers in Yemen and Bahrain share power and respect minority rights, respectively. These, however, are easy cases – too easy. Obama said not a word about the difficult problem of managing U.S. relations with Saudi Arabia, which for good reason feels deeply threatened by the uprisings sweeping the region.

Obama also struck a jarringly false note in urging Syrian dictator Bashar al-Assad to “lead the transition, or get out of the way.” This formulation reflects the weirdly persistent illusion among U.S. policy makers that Assad, who inherited his dictatorship, can somehow be transformed into an agent of democratic reform. In many ways, Assad is worse than his father. He turned Syria into a prime transit point for suicide terrorists en route to kill Americans and civilians in Iraq; he has subverted democracy in Lebanon and funneled arms to Hezbollah and Hamas; and, he has made Syria a virtual satrap of Iran. The administration has announced sanctions on Assad and other Syrian leaders responsible for the bloody crack-down on demonstrators, but America’s interests clearly lie with regime change in Damascus.

Despite such qualms, Obama’s speech at last has aligned America’s values with its long-run interests in the political and economic modernization of the wider Middle East. It’s a shame, though, that this strategic pivot has been obscured by a perplexing and ill-timed attempt to resuscitate Israeli-Palestinian peace negotiations.

The president is set to deliver a major address today on the Middle East. Here are five things his speech must include:

1. The Obvious: America stands by people the world over who seek freedom of expression and exercise of their democratic rights.

2. Frankness: Decades of American administrations have struck Faustian bargains with despots throughout the Middle East. The quid pro quo has been American financial support — militarily and otherwise — in exchange for regional stability.

3. An Admission: This policy has run counter to America’s best ideals, and in the end, it has failed. Autocracies are inherently unstable governing systems, and oppressed peoples will sooner or later rise up to win their freedoms as is manifest in the extraordinary events of this year.

4. A Light Touch: America still has many allies across a region where democracy is not the norm. But make no mistake: While America values its relationships with our allies, we remain committed to creating democratic openings in their societies. Our allies need only to look at the events of Tunisia, Egypt and Libya to realize that continuing along the same path is a fool’s errand.

5. A Plan of Action: America knows that the region’s people will judge us by our actions, not our words. While some our diplomatic efforts with allies may occur behind closed doors, we will visibly support the advancement of democracy by putting aside a larger pot of money to build civil societies in countries where they lacking. The National Endowment of Democracy should funnel much of this money to NGOs, political parties, and free media platforms so it is not tainted by its source.

During his 60 Minutes interview Sunday night, President Obama underscored the point that Seal Team 6 collected a “treasure trove” of information that could prove of incredible valuable to the intelligence community. So what’s in all the thumb drives, and how might, as the president asserted, the information “serve us very well”?

To be clear, part of what you’re about to read is speculation. It’s at least informed speculation, based on my time as a DoD counter terrorism analyst. As far as I can tell, the bottom line is that we’re now entering a crucial period — the United States has a strong short-term advantage and can exploit this find to hit al Qaeda while the group is scrambling. Here’s why:

First: Whenever the IC gets a major intel dump from a high value al Qaeda target, the very act of exposing new intelligence forces the remaining leadership’s hand. You can be sure that’s why President Obama emphasized our possession of the new material in the interview. The rest of AQ Core doesn’t know what we have, but must assume that its cover has been blown, which means their current lodging has become temporary quarters. The upshot is that in the coming days, they will be making plans to move. To accomplish this task, they’ll have to activate a support network of operatives, any of whom could unwittingly expose targets while in transit. In other words, the mere act of capturing substantial information has set up the United States to execute a number of near-term raids or bombings that could strike a fatal blow to AQ’s remaining leadership.

Second: Initial post-raid intelligence indicates that OBL was more involved in ongoing operations than previously believed, including a possible railway plot. It is an IC maxim that al Qaeda has always valued successful plot execution over adherence to a specific date or timeline. Exposing existing plans effectively compromises them, and AQ operatives — rather than risk a potentially compromised plot — are likely to delay or cancel ongoing operations while sending mid-level lieutenants into hiding for a period.

Third: Al Qaeda’s hierarchy has traditionally been composed of Bin Laden, Zawahiri, plus a chief of external operations and a chief of internal operations (defined as Af/Pak). These nodes all have to communicate with one another, and have long-since abandoned the creature comforts of technology in the 21st century. The key to finding OBL was identifying the courier who was in contact with him, and new information could expose other members of this network’s identities. This means that known couriers, too, will have to go into hiding, and the remaining AQ leaders will have to develop a new cadre of trusted sources. Building trust takes time and further delays ongoing operations of all stripes.

Forth: Follow the money — Al Qaeda’s financial network has to assume it is blown. The group traditionally channels money from all over the world into a few operatives near AQ Central. If OBL was maintaining a higher operational profile than we had previously believed, it stands to reason that he was involved with collecting and distributing finances. He might not have had much of a hand in the cookie jar, but the information on his computer drives might say who did.

Fifth: New information will likely shed light on the extent to which al Qaeda’s “branch offices” in failing states like Somalia and Yemen are taking direction from the Af/Pak-based leadership. If these regions had truly taken over some operational planning, newly captured information may reveal the nodes of international contact, which could theoretically be exploited. Information on the “abroad” AQ groups should also send a powerful message to Congress on the necessity of cutting aid to failing states, as they could now take on even greater prominence in the wake of OBL’s demise.

In sum, OBL’s death and the cache of new information it has created open a stark window of opportunity for the United States. The remaining leadership may be forced to expose themselves when they don’t want to, while delaying ongoing operations and reconstituting communications and financial networks from scratch. The Obama administration has proven its willing to take risks against al Qaeda. Now it has to keep its foot on the gas.