According to Peter Beinart: Yes. This is based on Obama's killing of Bin Laden, containment of Iran, and withdrawing from Iraq. However, some liberals like Glenn Greenwald, Juan Cole, Amy Goodman and digby would argue Beinart ignores or downplays the stagnant peace process between the Palestinians and Israelis (Obama recently acknowledged this failure), the inconsistent handling of the Arab Spring, including Syria and Bahrain and brushes off the decline of America's popularity in the Middle East due to the use of drones and keeping Gitmo open. Also, I'm not sure the killing of Bin Laden is a Middle East "thing" as he was killed in Pakistan and is linked to terrorism more than a Middle East policy.
In my opinion, the answer to Beinart's question should be more nuanced as Obama, even when not succeeding, approached the Middle East with pragmatism (e.g., handling of the Egyptian uprising) and good-intentions (e.g., demanding Israeli settlements freeze). So, "it's complicated" especially in the current environment in the US and the Middle East that makes it hard to push the Middle East policy forward. Excerpt from Beinart's article "How Obama's Middle East Policy Has Worked" on The Daily Beast:
"Why have Obama’s policies apparently succeeded in the greater Middle East while failing among the region’s people? Partly because he’s been blessed with even more unpopular enemies. No matter how much Muslims dislike the United States, al Qaeda’s barbaric agenda holds little appeal. And while Iran’s leaders once enjoyed some regional street cred for their opposition to Israel and the United States, the regime’s 2009 repression of the Green Movement plus its support for Syria’s murderous Bashar al-Assad have sent its favorability ratings plunging."Photo by REUTERS/Osman Orsal