Confusion was caused early on by a report from Isna, Iran's news agency, that Rouhani had said Israel is a "wound" that "had to be removed". A Twitter frenzy ensued to claim that he had not mentioned the word "Israel" nor that it should be removed, and then to argue about whether the Farsi word he used — zahm — meant "wound" or "sore". The debate settled on "sore", which was viewed as proof of his moderation.

Rouhani is unlikely to invoke heavenly creatures from the UN podium, as Ahmedinejad did; he will probably refrain from engaging in Holocaust denial; and he will seek to engage the West in substantive negotiations to end the nuclear impasse. 

He is definitely more moderate than Ahmadinejad, then — much as Nikita Khrushchev was more moderate than Joseph Stalin. But he is no Mikhail Gorbachev. 

In a sense, there has been a softening in rhetoric, but no evidence yet that in substance Rouhani will be any different from his predecessors. And why should he be? 

First, we should judge the man by his words. He agreed temporarily to halt Iran's uranium enrichment in 2003, but not because he intended to comply with UN resolutions or the agreement reached with the British Foreign Secretary Jack Straw and his French and German counterparts (the E3) on October 21, 2003. He did so as a tactical move that spared Iran from sanctions while not impeding overall progress towards its nuclear goals.  

His actions matter even more than his words. Rouhani took charge of quashing pro-democracy student demonstrations in 1999. He was at the helm of Iran's security apparatus when the Islamic Republic ordered the systematic murder of opponents abroad. Many of these hits took place on his 16-year watch as secretary of the Supreme Council for National Security.