Well, I keep an open mind on how my government will manage this negotiation. It's very, very difficult, and my government cannot take the military option off the table. The idea of an Iran with nuclear weapons that could be used either through its rocket-launching mechanism or through the filtering of nuclear material to make dirty bombs that could be used in Montreal and Toronto and Ottawa, and Paris and London and New York City, is simply something the international community can't accept.
I agree with you that a very tough issue would be posed if a more “moderate” leader were elected in June as the result of the supreme leader basically saying, we have to put a new face forward. Let's remember it was Rafsanjani, the so-called moderate in their administration, who made that suicidal/genocidal calculation, suggesting that it would essentially be a worthwhile trade-off to kill five million Jews in exchange for 15 million Muslims killed, because there are more Muslims than Jews. That kind of genocidal/suicidal calculation came not from Ahmadinejad, but from the more moderate alternative to Ahmadinejad. So if there is a change of face in the election, that doesn't mean there has been a success.
One has to take successes where they come. Libya is an example. The U.S., with the help of many allies, did get Libya to give up its nuclear ambitions and the Libyan leader to make changes. Does that mean the leaders of Libya are changed people, that they've changed their hearts? I wouldn't trust that for a moment, but they've changed their actions and their words. That's an important first step forward.
So if the result of the Obama Administration is to get a change in rhetoric and a change in words, that would be a good first step, but not one that would eliminate all need for caution.