During the past few months, a number of important events have taken place in the Middle East and the world which prove that political players are more willing to exercise moderateness and avoid extremism.

The fabric of the Syrian population as well as the quality of the country’s ongoing unrest which encompasses a wide spectrum of ethnic and religious conflicts in addition to dissimilar positions taken by regional and transregional players involved in the crisis have turned Syria situation into a major seismic fault line. This fault line is so profound and serious that other regional and even transregional crises have been activated along its course.

The Islamic Republic of Iran is totally and completely sure that accusations against it in AMIA case have been cooked up by Israel and this has been unwavering conviction of the Islamic establishment about this issue throughout the past years.

The Leader’s remarks have been erroneously interpreted by the Western media to denote that the Iranian Leader is opposed to any kind of negotiation, instead of being considered a sign of the Iranian Leader’s logical and realistic approach to the issue of “negotiation.”

There is no doubt that both Egypt and the Arab states of the Persian Gulf need to maintain and continue bilateral relations. However, there are also mutual suspicions and doubts between the Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood which has given birth to a democratic government through a popular revolution, on the one hand, and the leaders of the Persian Gulf states whose governments are traditional and non-popular, on the other hand.

The secret service of the Syrian government has managed to once more checkmate the Turkey’s officials in a successful operation during which a fugitive captain of the Syrian army, who had defected to the Free Syrian Army, has been captured. Once in Turkey, the defective captain was in charge of the intelligence operations of the Free Syrian Army in that country. Now he is back in Syria along with a treasure of information.

Purposive negotiations need necessary grounds which can be prepared by taking mutual steps. One such step, which can be considered the most important as well, is for the United States to stop the totally wrong policy of “closed doors” and sufficing to “semi-open window” when dealing with Iran.

Millions of Iranians have staged mass rallies across the country to mark the 34th anniversary of the victory of the 1979 Islamic Revolution.

All political authors believe that Egypt will not go back in time and will weather the current phase of street unrests. However, one question remains to be answered: which parties both inside and outside Egypt want to see a powerful, or on the contrary, a weakened Egypt.

The history of world diplomacy shows that the venue of any kind of negotiations can be actually of significance, especially if one country could be able to convince the opposite party or parties to carry out negotiations on their own soil. This issue is of high symbolic political importance to the host country as it would allow the host to categorically claim that it has not remained passive toward the problem engaging the negotiating parties.