The Obama Administration can point with pride at the sheer scale of its intentions, from a healthcare reform Bill that is turning out to be a cliff-hanger - so-called Blue Dog Democrats will decide whether it hangs or falls - to a wide form of engagement in foreign policy. This has seen special envoys, Secretaries of State and Defence and the Vice-President scouring Asia and the Middle East over the past fortnight.
It may be relevant to remember just what it is that President Barack Obama has promised to achieve. He has spoken, ingenuously, some say, of a "world without nuclear weapons". He has expressed a willingness to engage with North Korea, Iran, Syria, with anybody who does not see eye to eye with the United States. He views Afghanistan as a litmus test for America's war on terror and peace in the Middle East as an urgent priority.
Nobody can gainsay his wish-list; indeed, everybody supports it - except those who have their own wish-list... and hit list. The Middle East in particular is such a dangerous kaleidoscope of disparate ambitions it is wise that Mr Obama has committed himself to engagement. The problem is not America's commitment to engagement but that of the partners with whom it wishes to enter into fruitful discussions.
Iran, which has been in some form of turmoil ever since the elections that returned Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, fraudulently his opponents in Teheran continue to insist, to the Presidency of that country, is a vital player on the Middle East chess board. It shows no sign of giving up on its ambitions to achieve nuclear status, nor has it retracted its endgame move to checkmate Israel out of existence.
The US reaction to this has been Hillary Clinton's commitment to set up an "umbrella" (not yet defined) over states threatened by a nuclear-armed Iran. The determination to prevent Iran becoming that, which has long been expressed by senior members of the Administration, seems to be wobbling.
That wobble has been noted by Israel. The body language between US special envoy George Mitchell and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Nethanyahu, when they met recently, spoke volumes. Progress had been achieved, it was claimed, but it was clear that none had been.
The Israeli building of new settlements on the West Bank has not endeared it to the Obama Administration or to anybody else and Israel's insistence that Iran's nuclear facilities be taken out has been skewered, temporarily at least, by an American belief (not well-founded, apparently) that diplomacy on this issue will work.
As the United States sticks to its belief in diplomacy and engagement to the mast of its foreign policy, the real world does not stand still. It may be the case that Israel's decision to keep on building those settlements is a bid for a quid pro quo with the US. It may be saying: We will stop building them in exchange for an American commitment or go-ahead to disarm Iran.
Is it not more than passing strange that Iraq, so long a centre of disequilibrium, has entered a new phase while the remainder of the players in the Middle East remain obstinately far from reaching an agreement to turn a crisis-torn region into a place safe for all its peoples? Perhaps there are too many dancers involved for this multiple tango to work. Perhaps the hymn on the hymn sheet is not quite right.