Barack Obama's declaration that Israel's security is "sacrosanct" and "non-negotiable" and that the bond between it and the US is "unbreakable" is hardly surprising - given that his audience was the powerful Aipac lobbying organisation. Nor was his insistence that Iran threatens both countries - and the peace and stability of the Middle East.

Arabs may take some small comfort from his pledge that Palestine - where George Bush did nothing but damage - will be a priority from the first days of his presidency (not left as an afterthought until the end). But there is no other break with present US policy. Obama defines Hamas, now controlling the Gaza Strip, simply as a terrorist organisation with no place at the negotiating table: that allows no space for pragmatic engagement that some Europeans and even Israelis want to help it evolve.

He buys into the badly faltering Annapolis formula: isolate Hamas, (presumably maintaining the Gaza siege) showcase the West Bank and ask Israel to take "appropriate" steps but only if they are "consistent with its security" - that crucial (and likely crippling) qualification.

Interestingly, there is a reminder that he opposed the Palestinian elections that brought Hamas to power in 2006, implying disapproval of the post-Iraq "freedom agenda" that the neocons dreamed up and ditched when it produced, or threatened to produce, the "wrong" results.

Obama's commitment to Israel - its existence "just and necessary" - was reinforced by a sympathetic passage on the Holocaust. His understanding of the Zionist idea - "that there is always a homeland at the centre of our story" - was cleverly linked to his own complex sense of belonging. "The Palestinians need a state that is contiguous and cohesive, and that allows them to prosper," he says. But there was no emotional connection with their plight.

Obama will strike a chord with many - Americans, Europeans and others - with his complaint that after Iraq, America is more isolated in the Middle East - a massive understatement. But Arabs desperate for change will wince at his concern that one effect of this has been to jeopardise Israel's safety.

The Democratic candidate manages to sound both hawkish and flexible: justifying Israel's preemptive attack on an alleged nuclear site in Syria - but also, unlike Bush, supporting talks with the Damascus regime.

Iran, predictably, is the other big issue: a regime led by a Holocaust-denying president that supports "violent extremists" and is pursuing a nuclear capability. "I have no interest in sitting down with our adversaries just for the sake of talking. But as president of the United States, I would be willing to lead tough and principled diplomacy with the appropriate Iranian leader at a time and place of my choosing - if, and only if - it can advance the interests of the United States."

But there was a positive signal too: Obama talked of taking over the lead from Europe, offering Iran "meaningful incentives" - but keeping that threat of military action on the table. Less "satanic" from a Tehran perspective. But no pushover.

Perhaps his most achievable commitment is on Iraq - sensible, cool, with a justified sideswipe at the American president who created the mess: "We will get out as carefully as we were careless getting in. We will finally pressure Iraq's leaders to take meaningful responsibility for their own future." Sounds like a man who is looking thoughtfully to the future of the Middle East but is not going to make any fundamental changes.