Syria’s president, Bashar al-Assad, just before his visit to Paris for the Mediterranean Union summit on 12 July, said that economic relations between the countries of the Mediterranean could not be developed while there were ongoing regional conflicts, starting with the Arab-Israeli conflict. He talked to me for two hours in Damascus. He said: “If you don’t have political dialogue and talk about the big issues – achieving peace – there is no point in any other initiative... because there is no confidence between us.”

Many in Washington and Tel Aviv question Syria’s desire for peace, but Assad was genuinely anxious when he said that “our societies are moving towards conservatism, extremism. . . Terrorism is a threat to all humanity. Al-Qaida is not an organisation, it is a state of mind. It has no borders. Have we got a home-grown problem of terrorism? Yes. Since 2004, as a result of the war in Iraq, we began to see al-Qaida cells [appear], not related to the organisation but to a state of mind, through pamphlets and the internet. We are afraid for the future of the region. We need to change this fertile ground for terror throug h development, culture, the educational system, dialogue, tourism, and also exchange of information [between states]. The world is more vulnerable to terror than before 9/11.”

If the chance of peace is lost again, Assad is in no doubt that a new channel will open for the extremists. Syria’s indirect negotiations with Israel are within this context. After 2003 Assad more often stated the need to restart negotiations with Israel. After the 2006 war in Lebanon, he clearly distanced himself from the statements of Iran’s president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad: “I do not say that Israel should be removed from the map. We want peace, peace with Israel” (1). Ariel Sharon and then Ehud Olmert were deaf to these wishes, and others (particularly in Washington) refused to trust Assad’s regime. In May, however, Israel and Syria announced the opening of indirect negotiations, with the Turkish prime minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan as intermediary.

How does Assad interpret the Israeli acceptance of negotiations? “The war on Lebanon taught everybody that you cannot solve the problem by war. Israel is the strongest military power in the region and Hizbullah is smaller than any army in the region. What did they achieve? Nothing.” He recalled that after the war many US delegations close to Israeli positions made their way to Damascus. In December 2006, the Baker-Hamilton report called for dialogue between the US and Syria, and in April 2007 Nancy Pelosi, speaker of the US House of Representatives, met Assad. But, he said: “The biggest obstacle is the American administration. It is the first time that we have an administration that tells the Israelis not to move towards peace.”

Assad thinks it is necessary to wait for a new US administration in 2009 before Syrian-Israeli talks get anywhere, since their success will need a powerful intermediary, which Assad believes can only be the US. Even so, there has to be progress during the waiting period, which is the point of the current indirect talks. “After eight years of paralysis [since the end of negotiations between the two countries in 2000], after the war on Lebanon, and two attacks on Syria, there is no trust. What we are doing in Turkey is probing Israel’s intentions; we don’t trust them and perhaps they don’t trust us. We want to make sure the Israelis are ready for peace. Ready to give back the whole of the Golan, then to plan the common ground for negotiations: Security Council resolution 242 and the general problems we should discuss (water, security).”

During the talks between the late Hafez al-Assad and Ehud Barak (then Israel’s prime minister) in 1999-2000, several breakthroughs were made on the most tricky issues. “I said that 80% of them are solved: security problems and relations between Israel and Syria,” said Assad. “But the problem is that Israel doesn’t want to start from where we left off.” He believes there can be a compromise, except on recovering the whole of the Golan. Israel demanded in 2000 that it should keep a warning post on Syrian territory – an unacceptable condition since Syria cannot accept any Israeli military presence on its soil. An agreement was reached to station US military personnel in the post.

When asked about those who say he should break off relations with Iran, Assad replied cautiously: “What should I say to Iran? I don’t want your help, I want to be isolated? I don’t want good relations with you? Iran is a very important country in our region. It wants to solve problems, have peace and stability. Iran is essential. There are many problems you can’t solve without the Iranians. How can the outside world ask me to achieve peace and stability and not have good relations with Tehran? It’s the same with Turkey, with whom we did not have good relations for years. What did we get and what did Turkey get? Nothing. The same with Iran. We don’t agree with Iran on everything: Israel, Iraq. But Iran supports our negotiations with Turkey, and that’s very important for us. But we are not anyone’s puppets! Even at the time of our alliance with USSR they never managed to prevent us from doing whatever we wanted in our region.”

Did he think an attack on Iran is possible before the end of Bush administration? “Logically there shouldn’t be. The price would be very, very heavy on the whole world. The question, and that is what we discussed with the Iranians, is what Iran should not do under international law. That is military nukes. But we are allowed, including Syria, to have peaceful, civilian nuclear facilities. As long as the Iranians don’t breach international law what can be done against them? They have the right to enrich uranium. They said come and check it, and up to a few years ago they even had AIEA cameras in their facilities. Force won’t work with Iran, just as it doesn’t with Syria.”

Asked about the future Assad said: “What I’d like in five years time is to see Syria as it was in the 1960s, more open-minded, less extremist. 
The previous generation… was much more open than our generation. Even if you are secular, if you’re surrounded by extremism you become intoxicated by its fumes, even if you don’t get burnt yourself. Iraq was secular under Saddam; today there is much more sectarianism. I wish for better relations with the rest of the world. I wish the media, especially those in the US, would try to get to know us more. We know everything about 
the West but the West knows little about us. I hope the European Union will increase its influence on the US.”