Let's say that Iran's President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad actually loses to "reformist" challenger Mir Hossein Mousavi in Friday's election. For U.S. policy, what will change? Words. Temperament. But the big issues will remain.

Iran will continue its steady walk towards nuclear weapons. It will still try to mold internal Iraqi politics. Iran will continue supporting Hezbollah and Hamas. The rhetoric will soften. The problems may not. Sound familiar?

In Depth: History's 10 Most Important Presidential Visits

In Depth: America's Freest and Least Free States

Even in a real democracy, foreign policy is slow to shift. Imagine an Iranian journalist, schooled in U.S. politics, writing one year ago on the 2008 presidential election. She might have said the same about Barack Obama versus John McCain.

There is a good deal of domestic debate over the degree to which Obama has not broken from George W. Bush on foreign policy. This should surprise few. During the 2004 campaign, I interviewed a dozen top diplomats in the United Nations. I asked them whether they believed U.S. foreign policy would significantly change if John Kerry defeated Bush. The resounding answer was no.

Just as domestic issues drive American presidential elections, so it goes in Iran.

Seventy percent of Iran's population is under age 35. One in five Iranians are unemployed. Inflation is over 30 percent. They got problems.

The candidates are facing off on the economy but also cultural politics. Again, a familiar tune to Americans. Their debate is over the influence and interpretation of Islamic law. Iran's elections outcome will impact women's rights but not the faceoff over Iran's nuclear program.

Some change abroad always comes when parties change at home. Obama recently went to Cairo with words blazing. But, as expected, new and big policies remain in the holster.

Obama has doubled down in Afghanistan. To smooth tensions with the Arab world, Obama's pressuring Israel on settlements. That's a good sign to Muslims, but only a sign. The Arab wants to hear and see much more to their liking, before Obama represents change they can believe in.

Here's the thing. The United States does not want total adulation from the "Arab Street." For the Muslim world to truly feel like we are wholly, and holy, on its side, it would mean a polar shift from abandoning Israel to immediately fleeing Iraq. This is not going to happen. Obama's goal is more modest, and yet still important.

Words do matter. A nation's face matters. Obama's rhetorical shift in foreign policy does mean a small shift in policy. Take his pledge to end torture or explicitly speaking of a Palestinian state, rather than a state that is an abstract future possibility.

Each shift, putting aside debate stateside, quickly warmed the U.S. image abroad. Of course, Obama has yet to prove his soft power can make us more powerful. But there is still time.

For Iran, an Ahmadinejad loss remains a long shot. But even if Ahmadinejad and the powers behind him prevail, the image of opposition is with us. Some significant portion of the 46 million Iranian voters--many young, urbane and more educated--are upset with Ahmadinejad. Mousavi has become the vessel of their protest over domestic issues, yes, but also extremism.

Indeed, the message of an Ahmadinejad win--presuming this is a legitimate election--would be weighty for the same reason. Ahmadinejad has said "anybody who recognizes Israel will burn in the fire of the Islamic nation's fury" or that "Zionists avail themselves of the fairy tale of [the] Holocaust as blackmail." Those words give a sense that reasonable minds are not prevailing in Persia.

But the serious issues rest with another man. When Ahmadinejad would brandish his brinkmanship, there was often a pundit on the American left that would say, rightly, cool down. The true leader in Iran is the theocratic Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei. Translation: hawks withdraw claws, don't sweat Ahmadinejad.

If Ahmadinejad loses, the American left will greet it as proof that the era of Obama has reached Tehran. Of course, if Ahmadinejad wins, the right will argue that it's proof that hawks were right about Iran.

Truth is, an Ahmadinejad loss would be good for the West. But whoever wins, the United States, Israel and the Arab Middle East still have to reckon with Iran's true leader, Khamenei.

Khamenei pushed back against Obama's Cairo address, arguing that "beautiful speeches" will not change that Muslims "hate America." When the dove riles the hawk, you know the hawk is anxious.

But it is Khamenei who concerns analysts from Jerusalem to Washington. He seems to be doing everything he can to harden Obama.

As the top religious leader in Iran, Khamenei's power stretches from appointing Iran's military commanders to shaping national security policy. Khamenei also signs off on the candidates now facing off. Now that's a puppet master.

But it's not all bad news. The West's new front is on the west side of the Middle East.

Recently, a moderate coalition won power in Lebanon. It was a real election. The government will be pluralistic, constituted by Christians, Muslims and Druse.

Hezbollah remains a problem in Lebanon. But the election was a blow to both Hezbollah and its sponsor, Iran's extreme theocrats.

Lebanon signaled change. By contrast, no matter who wins in Persia, it will still be the same Iran on the world stage.

In Depth: America's Freest and Least Free States

In Depth: 8 Things Americans Believe in 2009

In Depth: History's 10 Most Important Presidential Visits