Iran's leading English language daily, Tehran Times, described the apparent shift in U.S. policy as a 'return to sanity'. 'The fact that the U.S. sent its third highest ranking diplomat, William Burns, the under secretary of state for political affairs, to Geneva for talks with Iran on Saturday has been interpreted as a change of policy by Washington,' the paper said. 'Whatever the case may be, the U.S. has made a constructive move and hopefully will continue this trend. When two countries have a dispute, it is only through dialogue and a commitment to the principle of respecting others' rights that a compromise can eventually be reached that will satisfy each side in the end. Life should not be a battleground for trial and error, and, as history has shown, departures from sanity always lead to catastrophe if there is no timely course correction.'

Lebanon's widely-respected Daily Star newspaper wrote in its editorial that although U.S. officials have denied that the gesture was a reversal from their previous approach of isolating Iran, 'everyone knows that the Bush administration was quietly forced to abandon a policy that had clearly failed to achieve results.' It is now obvious, the paper said, that the American move has 'completely altered the appearance of the diplomatic process. Readjustments in the U.S. stance have made the Americans appear to be the more flexible party in the Iranian-American cold war, whereas before the lack of progress could be blamed on a duo of obstinate rivals. Even the most pro-Iranian observer cannot deny that the Americans have now gone 180 degrees and more than 6,550 kilometers from Washington to Geneva.'

Saudi Arabia and other Gulf countries said the U.S. move proved that only way to solve the crisis between Iran and the West is through negotiations, not force. 'There are, of course, those who still expect the U.S. or Israel or both to launch a military strike on Iran, but the recent peace overtures are persuading more people into realising that international, regional and local considerations weigh too heavily against such a military adventure,' said a Saudi political analyst. 'The U.S. cannot embark on a major military operation while its forces are bogged down in Iraq, tensions everywhere else in the region are rife, and many of the U.S. allies in the region are opposed to the military option. In addition, a military strike against Iran would wreak havoc on the already troublesome energy situation as Iran sits on a huge oil reserve of its own and overlooks the world's most important transit route for oil.'

If anyone is upset, of course, it's the Israelis and some hawkish politicians in Washington who believe that Bush is making a major mistake by 'appeasing' the regime of President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. In an article entitled 'Now Bush is Appeasing Iran,' the American Enterprise Institute's Michael Rubin argued that the White House is propping up a failed administration (in Tehran, not Washington), by sending Under Secretary of State William Burns to talks with Iran's nuclear negotiator about incentives for Tehran. Rubin believes that the Bush administration in effect is rewarding Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's bad behaviour. 'Diplomacy is not wrong, but President Bush's reversal is diplomatic malpractice on a Carter-esque level that is breathing new life into a failing regime,' he explained. 'If anything the Bush administration should be contributing to the weakening of Ahmadinejad's regime, not buttressing it against collapse.'

Former U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, John Bolton, who has been spearheading calls to launch a military strike on Iran, urged the Bush administration to extend support to Israel to launch a military operation. 'Instead of debating how much longer to continue five years of failed diplomacy, we should be intensively considering what cooperation the U.S. will extend to Israel before, during and after a strike on Iran,' he said. 'We will be blamed for the strike anyway, and certainly feel whatever negative consequences result, so there is compelling logic to make it as successful as possible. At a minimum, we should place no obstacles in Israel's path, and facilitate its efforts where we can.'

Apart from being angry at the new U.S. policy, the Israelis said last month they were also caught by surprise. Israel's biggest fear is that the Jewish state would be left alone to face Iran. 'Israel, of course, will have to live with the Bush administration's new approach, while viewing its potential for success with justifiable scepticism,' said Calev Ben David, a prominent political analyst in Jerusalem. One government official responded by saying that Israel 'understands the need for both carrots and sticks, and if this change in tactics creates a chance for diplomacy to succeed, then some good can come of it. Echoing a widely held perception in Israel, Ben David expressed fear that Iran would simply exploit this new diplomatic window as yet another delaying tactic, stalling for more time while proceeding with its nuclear programme.

Yossi Melman, one of Israel's leading commentators on foreign policy and security issues, said he did not rule out the possibility that President Bush had a hidden agenda. 'He may be willing to give the impression that he is trying to compromise, in order to prepare public opinion, at home and abroad, prior to toughening the measures against Tehran,' Melman said. 'Bush might be aiming to signal that he does not reject diplomacy as a way of resolving the crisis, even though he does not believe in its efficacy. In the end, he will be able to argue that even the most conciliatory offer was not sufficient to assuage Iran. Perhaps this way he will be able to convince the international community to impose tougher sanctions on Iran, banning exports of fuel to it and possibly imposing a naval blockade... In other words, even though in the past two weeks the military option seems to be further removed from us, it is still on the agenda in the U.S. and Israel.'

top