Today some of the facts of life look Blairite. The past few days have brought a transformation in the foreign policy scene and a corresponding surge in his prestige.

Tony Blair’s enemies were licking their lips as the Iraqi elections approached. Maybe a spectacular terrorist outrage on polling day, along with a derisory turnout, would supply a suitable epitaph for the Blair/Bush misadventure.

Things turned out differently. The level of violence continued much as before, but no higher. The terrorist menace has journalists pinned down in their compounds, unable to tell us how bad (or good) life in Iraq is. The sight of inky-fingered Iraqis weeping with joy because for the first time they had been able to vote in a democratic election moved even the British media. Foreign correspondents who (understandably) are terrified to show their faces in a Baghdad street were impressed by citizens who defied death threats to cast their ballots.

The Iraqi election spun the weather vane of international politics. The wind is now blowing for the coalition. During Condoleezza Rice’s first foreign tour as US secretary of state, European politicians who made a career of anti-Americanism tumbled over each other to grease up to their visitor.

Gerhard Schröder, chief architect of continental Europe’s calamitous rift with the United States, was wreathed in unctuous smiles as he greeted her. Spain’s foreign minister, whose country provoked Washington by withdrawing its troops from Iraq, seemed delighted with his peremptory handshake. A few months ago it seemed brave to defy the world’s superpower by pulling out of the occupation forces. Now it seems churlish not to have been there to protect the Iraqi voters as they risked their lives en route to the polls.

Rice supplied America with a new smiling face. She seemed to be a different woman, conducting herself with a femininity that was not apparent when, as national security adviser, she was often seen during press conferences scowling at the president’s side.

The secretary of state’s tour had an almost magical effect. Within hours of her meetings with Mahmoud Abbas, the Palestinian president, and Ariel Sharon, the Israeli prime minister, the two men were shaking hands in the company of the rulers of Jordan and Egypt.

By all means let us remember that there have been many false dawns in the Middle East, but we should not underplay the importance of what is happening now. Who would have guessed that within days of Bush’s second inauguration we would see the leaders of the two enemies sitting together to agree to a ceasefire? Suddenly Bush does not look so obdurate for having said that Yasser Arafat was the impediment to peace. Today the years of European toadying to the late PLO chairman do not seem like a good investment.

Blair’s support for Bush over the past four years no longer smacks of political suicide. He always sought as his reward an American commitment to the Middle East peace process. Now he has it. His opponents will find it harder to attack the Iraq war without appearing indifferent to Iraqi democracy. In foreign policy the facts of life look Blairite.

What luck, you could say, that the international scene has turned around just weeks before the British general election. In truth, although the timing of Arafat’s death was fortuitous, Blair has made his own luck. He staked everything on backing America and he deserves credit for his tenacity.

It is a pity that the prime minister is not interested in history, because his recent experience illustrates a recurring phenomenon that is hard to explain. Surprisingly often, political parties succeed in the wake of events that you might expect to sink them electorally (although the leader does not always survive).

The Conservatives increased their majority following the catastrophe of Suez. Under Margaret Thatcher they won a landslide victory despite 3m unemployed. John Major squeaked home after the Tories had both introduced and abolished the hated poll tax. The opinion polls say that Labour will win despite Iraq.