However, despite these positive signs there is little evidence of change at the level of principles.

Rouhani set out his policies on relations with the U.S. and the nuclear issue in a recent interview with CNN, a September 20 Washington Post article entitled "Why Iran Seeks Constructive Engagement", and in his September 24 speech to the UN General Assembly.

Nothing he said indicated a departure from the policies of his predecessor on three fundamental principles. Firstly, he emphasized that relations between Iran and U.S. relations should be on equal footing, based on mutual respect and mutual interests - though interestingly, he did talk about the need for constructive engagement.

Secondly, he criticized the U.S. for retaining a Cold War mindset, pursuing hegemony, and seeking to impose Western values on the world. He also attacked U.S. and Israeli policies as the main cause of regional instability.

Thirdly, on the nuclear issue he insisted that the West must concede "acceptance of and respect for the implementation of the right to enrichment inside Iran." He denounced as illusory the idea that obstructing Iran's nuclear program through illegitimate pressure would ensure its peaceful nature.

In other words, Rouhani has abandoned Ahmadinejad's harsh rhetoric against the West and Israel, but not the principles laid down by Iran's political establishment. Iran has not changed its perception of the role of the U.S. and Israel in the region, nor has it given up its quest for respect. (This is not to say, of course, that these stances are illegitimate). And it remains extremely unlikely that Iran will give up its existing capabilities to enrich uranium for industrial use.

No fundamental change has taken place on the U.S. side either, despite the Obama administration's favorable response to Iran's gestures. Barack Obama's recent remark that a nuclear deal with Iran can only be achieved by combining diplomatic efforts with a credible threat of force is nothing but the old carrot and stick policy that was so deeply resented by Iran. Ahmadinejad used to say sticks and carrots are for donkeys, not Iranians.

And there is nothing to indicate that U.S. suspicions of Iran's real intentions have significantly diminished. Barack Obama insists that Rouhani's conciliatory words must be matched by transparent and verifiable actions. And U.S. scholars, politicians and media pundits are queuing up to claim that Iran is only interested in getting sanctions lifted, not in genuine engagement with the U.S.

Nevertheless, friendly, or at least less hostile, U.S.-Iran relations would benefit everyone. The current positive interactions between the two sides may result in some improvement in bilateral relations. Both sides seem to be anxious to make progress. One way forward might be for Iran to agree to increase the transparency of its nuclear program in exchange for the removal of some sanctions.

But it is unlikely that the previously hostile relations between the two sides will fundamentally improve. Given the depth of U.S. suspicion, Iran may be asking too much in demanding respect for its Islamic regime and recognition of its right to the peaceful use of nuclear energy.

It should be said that Iran's adherence to principles is perfectly legitimate. There is nothing wrong with seeking respect or with a desire to be treated on an equal footing. The nuclear dispute might be at the root of the conflict between the two sides, but the way the U.S. deals with Iran is also an issue. If the U.S. were to show more respect, there would be more room for compromise on the Iranian side.

The author is a columnist with China.org.cn. For more information please visit:

http://china.org.cn/opinion/jinliangxiang.htm

Opinion articles reflect the views of their authors, not necessarily those of China.org.cn.