Which are the new elements that have brought Syria closer to “moderate” Arab countries?

I would put that in a totally differently manner. The so-called moderate Arab states have returned to negotiate with Syria. One reason is that they realized that Obama was about to invite Damascus to be part of negotiations. Furthermore, the Gaza war has proved that Hamas cannot be eliminated easily. The only way to deal with Hamas would be through Syria, adopting the same protocol applied to Hezbollah in 2006.

Could we say that President Bashar al Assad has adopted a pragmatic foreign affairs policy instead of an ideological one?

Ideology is important, but it never gets in the way of Syria’s best interest. We went to war to liberate Kuwait in 1991 in spite of the fact that it was an Arab nation and the coalition was headed by the US. It was in Syria’s best interest to see a free Kuwait. We attended the Madrid negotiations because we wanted the liberation of the Golan Heights. I do not think that ideology has ever interfered with Syrian foreign policy, except for a brief period between 1966 and 1970. Syria accepted to take part in the Riyadh meeting with Saudi Arabia, Egypt and Kuwait just as it took part in working on the drafting of the Doha agreement wishing only to bridge the gap between Arab players. Syria has never been responsible for divisions or disagreements. It was the Saudis who assumed an aggressive stance against Syria because they felt threatened by Iran. The same happened in Cairo. If one studies history one sees that already back in the Fifties there was a close alliance between Syria, Saudi Arabia and Egypt. We cannot recant our own history.

How could Syrian maintain old alliances and at the same time build new ones with the opposite side?

Syria has had an alliance with Iran since 1979. But during the Nineties this alliance was not publicly advertised because we Clinton’s America had friendly relations with Saudi Arabia, Iraq (after 1998), Egypt and France. The international community started to perceive the Syrian-Iranian alliance as a threat after 2003 when the American alliances started to crumble. After that Syria attended the Annapolis summit in 2007, in spite of objections from both Hamas and Teheran. So Syria proved that Damascus simply pursued its national interest in the world. In fact, Damascus still pursues the same policy. Syria has a multitude of alliances on the table such as with France, Qatar, Turkey, Saudi Arabia, Iran and US as well. Syria’s main objective is to regain the Golan Heights. In order to achieve this goal, Damascus’ policy is “more friends for Syria and fewer enemies.”

How important is Syria’s role in the Iraqi peace process?

Syria has excellent relations with the Iraqi tribes. Damascus is able to involve the Sunni parts in the political process. The appointment of a Syrian ambassador to Iraq represents an important step and obviously a symbolic one by an Arab nationalist State which opposed the occupation from day one. Syria also has good relations with players like Muqtada al-Sadr and Iraqi official representatives such as Nuri al-Maliki. Syria can help legitimize Maliki and his team in the eyes of ordinary Iraqis. And it can help the Americans, as Foreign Minister Mouallem said, to organize an honorable exit from Iraq. Syria is not interested in seeing the Americans being humiliated in their exodus from Iraq. Damascus’ primary concern is that the violence escalated in Iraq could spill over into Syrian territory.

What does Syria expect from the other Arab countries? And from USA?

Syria expects Arab leaders to cooperate in the Iraqi peace process and to refrain from having a hostile attitude towards resistance groups like Hamas and Hezbollah. With regard to US, the White House should apply pressure on Netanyahu’s government since the Knesset has shown it is not interested in the peace process.

What the "March 14" Alliance’s victory in the Lebanon mean to Syria?

I think that the victory in itself was not a surprise, but the large difference in number of seats won between the “March 8” coalition and the “March 14” Alliance is relevant. Hezbollah did not lose, but it emerged victorious as a party. However, the coalition lost, and Hezbollah is a part of it. What everyone is working on now is maintaining the status quo of 2005-2009, only with a new spirit of mutual understanding. I do not think the Lebanese election result represents a drawback for the Syrians. On the contrary, it shows that the Syrians did not interfere in the Lebanon, confirming the line which America has been asking for. Damascus is sure of its innocence in the Rafiq al-Hariri case. President Bashar himself stressed in a variety of interviews: if a honest and not a politicized trial is held, and Syrians are implicated, they will be tried. I think the newly-elected Lebanese government will pave the way for a new understanding between the US and Syria.