In the wake of Benjamin Netanyahu’s first meeting with Barack Obama, his allies were quick to declare victory. When the US president announced something resembling a finite timetable for diplomatic efforts to halt Iran’s nuclear programme, their reading goes, Israel recorded a triumph. Those observers must have been watching a different press conference from the rest of us. What was strikingly apparent is how far apart the two men are in their plans to achieve both Middle East peace and a conclusion to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

But even the most hawkish and delusional of Israeli politicians cannot have been surprised by this. While Mr Netanyahu has steadfastly refused to support a two-state solution in its most commonly understood format, two states for two people, Mr Obama has sent every signal that the US is seeking an autonomous Palestinian state. The triumphalist outbursts from the Israeli Right in the wake of the press conference were a desperate attempt at damage control.

The Israeli prime minister clung to such phrases as “the special relationship between the US and Israel” and the assurance the US was keeping all options on the table in its attempt to halt Iran’s nuclear ambitions, the perennial watchwords for Washington’s unconditional support for Israel. But Mr Obama was very careful to say that there would be no artificial deadlines for progress in its diplomatic efforts with Iran. Despite the Israeli leadership’s increasing edginess over Iran’s apparent pursuit of nuclear weapons, the US’s policy on Iran is unlikely to be shaped by those inflated concerns. Indeed, what is most reassuring about Mr Obama is that he does not allow his country’s regional policy to be moulded by any interest other than America’s – although Israeli politicians have a tendency to conflate the two.

Iran’s threat to Middle East security is significant, but it is not the most significant. The unresolved conflict between Israelis and Palestinians is a recruiting sergeant for transnational terrorist organisations. So long as Palestinian statehood withers in the back halls and conference rooms of seemingly interminable rounds of negotiations, Middle East peace is unlikely to be achieved. And it will take a significant effort to overcome Israeli inertia. After Monday’s press conference it appears that Mr Obama is preparing to make such an effort. And in the process he has seized control of the debate. By acknowledging but refusing to be tied to the concerns of Israel, the US finally has a chance to play honest broker in the negotiations and shape the debate.

Nor has Mr Obama reserved all his sternness for Israel. During the press conference he decried the inability of the Palestinian leadership to put its house in order and deliver security guarantees required of it under the road map to peace. He also called on Arab states to “be bolder in seeking potential normalisation with Israel”, a tacit reference to the peace initiative and a hint of his intent to push the Arab proposal forwards.

The world will probably have a clearer view of Mr Obama’s intentions on Middle East peace when he travels to Cairo in June for his long-awaited address to the Muslim world. The threat of Iran, the Arab-Israeli conflict and the Israeli-Palestinian issue will undoubtedly figure greatly in that speech. For now, Mr Obama is holding his cards close to his chest: but given his track record there is much reason to hope for progress.