I thought it was good and proper, but I'm not surprised by Iran's response or by those of knowledgeable experts: for now these are good words, but absent some movement off the actual demands/actions of Bush-Cheney, that's all they amount to. Iran isn't going to fall over itself, especially as a presidential election is ramping up, to gush warm in our direction on this basis alone. Obama signaled acknowledgment of Iran's regime and its revolution, but nothing regarding the pursuit of nuclear capacity, where we still declare our firm resistance and maintain intense sanctions. So long as we're on that path, Iranian leaders and enough of the population will feel a certain insecurity--a certain fear that the war is still coming from either the U.S. or Israel or both. Obviously, Ahmadinejad and his mouth are a huge sticking point. Absent his pointless and toothless threats, the whole subject would be much smaller and therefore perhaps far more approachable. But the man asks for conflict, with great political purpose, and we provide it, in Pavlovian discipline, and so the stand-off is maintained, despite the change in tone. Absent Ahmadinejad's defeat in June, I don't see this changing too much. Obama will feel the need to stand firm on terror and nukes, and Iran will feel the same regarding our use of force in other people's countries with impunity (or am I missing the UN approval of our strikes inside Pakistan?) and our continued possession of nukes--ditto on both counts for Israel.