On May 4, 2008, Dr. Mamoun Fandy, a renowned researcher of the Middle East and a veteran writer in the Middle Eastern media, interviewed U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice. Dr. Fandy has authored several books on the Middle East, most recently (Un)Civil War of Words. He is a former editor of the Arabic bimonthly Qadaya 'Alamiyya as well as a former research fellow at several U.S. research institutes, and is currently Senior Fellow for Gulf Security at the International Institute for Strategic Studies in London.

The following are excerpts from the interview, in the original English, which appeared in the London daily Al-Sharq Al-Awsat on May 4, 2008.[1]

"Syria Has Not Shown the Kind Of Interest In, and Behavior Towards, The Middle East That Would Suggest It Really Seeks Peace"

Mamoun Fandy: "Are you aware of all of these mediations on the sidelines between Syria and the Israelis through Turkey and other parties and do you bless these efforts?"

Condoleezza Rice: "Well, I have read the reports, and, look, we believe that Turkey is first of all a good ally, Israel is a good ally. We've never, in any way, wanted to stand in the way of peace between Israel and any of its neighbors, including Syria. And if they wish to pursue peace, by all means they should do it, and the United States would be supportive of that.

"I think the issue is that Syria has not shown the kind of interest in, and behavior towards, the Middle East that would suggest it really seeks peace, particularly vis-à-vis Lebanon. And the one thing that mustn't happen is that there is a pursuit of peace along the Syrian track and somehow Lebanon gets left out in the cold.

"Absolutely, the Syrians ought to demarcate the line with Lebanon; absolutely we have to resolve the 1701 issue concerning Shabaa farms; absolutely the Syrians ought to send an ambassador to Lebanon and stop treating Lebanon like a province of Syria. And you also shouldn't have an interruption on the Palestinian track. But if those can be pursued, and the Syrian track can be pursued at the same time too, then they should do it."

"A Long Time Ago, Syria Should Have Demarcated the Border With Lebanon and Exchanged Ambassadors"

Mamoun Fandy: "It looks like there is possibly a formula in the making where you can have 'the Golan for Lebanon,' that is, the Israelis give the Golan back to Syria and the Syrians give southern Lebanon back to the Lebanese."

Condoleezza Rice: "I don't know if that's how this will come out. I just know there are several issues that have to be solved. A long time ago, it's been a long time, a long time ago Syria should have demarcated the border with Lebanon and exchanged ambassadors. And I think that should be independent of what happens to the Golan, but obviously we would like to see all the conflicts resolved, so that you could have peace.

"But, there is a process for delineation or demarcation of the Shabaa farms, that the UN undertook under 1701, and I think it's probably time to start seeing what that has produced."

"Syria Could Have Made a Choice to Be Among Those States That Are Seeking to Diminish Extremist Influences and Move Toward Peace; Unfortunately, Not Long After [Annapolis] Syria and Its Allies Began Holding Up the Election Of the President in Lebanon, and That Has Continued"

Mamoun Fandy: "Then on to security. [There's] Syria, next door to Iraq, and then its alliance with Iran. For the Arab states as well as for the West, it is important to move Syria away from Iran and put it in the Arab camp. Are there carrots or incentives that you have for Syria to move to the other side?"

Condoleezza Rice: "Well, Syria simply has to make a choice. I remember at the time of Annapolis, there were questions about would Syria be invited. Well, of course Syria was invited. Then there were questions of would Annapolis make clear that ultimately we sought a comprehensive peace. The Palestinian track was the focus of Annapolis, but would it be clear that there was an interest in comprehensive peace? That was clear. And so, at that point I think Syria could have made a choice to be among those states that are seeking to diminish extremist influences and move toward peace. Unfortunately, not long after [Annapolis] Syria and its allies began holding up the election of the president in Lebanon, and that has continued.

"So I would say not 'What carrots are there?' but [ask whether] Syria really want[s] to make a choice to be part of the responsible parties, or the responsible states, in the Middle East, who seek a particular kind of Middle East, in which you can have Iraqi democracy – and by the way that means cutting off flows to foreign fighters in Iraq; where you can have a Lebanese democracy – and that would mean allowing, encouraging the Lebanese to go ahead and elect their president and get on with their own democratic development; a Middle East in which you can have a Palestinian state, in which Hamas finally adheres to not just international standards, but the standard of the Arab world, about the two state solution and the Arab peace initiative.

"And so those are the questions that I would have, and Syria has to make a choice."

"We Are Going to Challenge and Confront Iran, Whenever, Operating in Iraq, They Endanger Our Soldiers or Engage in Activities That Put Innocent Iraqis at Risk"

Mamoun Fandy: "Now it looks like Iran has practically doubled the number of its centrifuges, complicating the strategic picture in the region. What are you doing about Iran in the context of the big strategic picture for the stability of the Middle East?"

Condoleezza Rice: "Yes, that's a very good question, because Iran is behind a lot of problems, a lot of the trouble in the Middle East. Whether it's a port for Hizbullah, and I believe, the inability for Lebanon to elect its president; or whether it is the support to the Jaysh al-Mahd and the militias in Iraq; or to Hamas in Gaza: It's quite clear that Iran is the problem. Then you have Iran seeking the technology secretly for a nuclear weapon. So we have been, first of all, strengthening the capacity of our allies to defend themselves, which is why the security cooperation efforts we are making in the Gulf are very important.

"Secondly, we are going to challenge and confront Iran, whenever, operating in Iraq, they endanger our soldiers or engage in activities that put innocent Iraqis at risk. And we've been very active against Iranian trainers and Iranian agents in Iraq, and we will continue to do that. Their people are not safe anywhere in Iraq if they are engaged in nefarious activities.

"Look, the fact is that Iran is Iraq's neighbor, so they will have diplomatic relations, and that's fine. But when it comes to people who are planting, giving EFP, IED technology, and who are endangering our soldiers, we will go after them.

"Finally, on the nuclear program, we are working with the international community. I was at a meeting yesterday where we have shown Iran that there are two paths.

"One is to continue down the Security Council [path] and keep sanctioning. And by the way, it's not just UNSC sanctions, but it is sanctions that derive from the U.S.'s designating Iranian banks, entities that are using the financial system for ill-gotten gain. And we will keep doing that, and that is making people worried about the reputational risk of dealing with Iran and I think you will see that increase.

"On the other hand, there is another path for Iran. We certainly have no quarrel with the Iranian people, and the Iranian people are a great people, great culture, and we should be friends with the Iranian people and with Iran. You see that the U.S. does not have any permanent enemies. We've demonstrated that. One of our closest friends in the world is Japan, once an enemy. We have much better relations today with Libya, once a great hostile relationship. So we are capable of bridging differences. But Iran has not given an opening to do that."

[1] The text has been lightly edited for clarity.