 Hello and welcome. I'm Rima Mekhtabi coming to you from the World Economic Forum in Davos. Accelerated diplomacy, historical rivalries and social transformations are rapidly converging to fundamentally reshape the region. How can these pivotal shifts be translated into stability and prosperity for future generations? Allow me to welcome our esteemed guests to this session. I'll start with Mr. Mohammad Jawad Zarif, Minister of Foreign Affairs of the Islamic Republic of Iran. Ghassan Salameh, Dean of the Paris School of International Affairs. Ahmed Davatoglu, Minister of Foreign Affairs of Turkey. Nasser Sami Joudi, Minister of Foreign Affairs and expatriates of the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan. Richard Haas, President of Council on Foreign Relations. And Masoud Barzani, President of the Kurdistan region in Iraq. I'll start with Mr. Zarif and I'd like to tell you that when I talk to Mr. Barzani it will be in Arabic and I will give you heads up to have the translation. Mr. Zarif, Iran wasn't invited to Geneva II according to President Rouhani. The crisis in Syria is only about terrorists. Will you continue taking sides in Syria? Well, it's not about taking sides. It's about understanding for all of us in the region and beyond the region that there are not going to be winners and losers in this, that we cannot continue with the old approach of zero-sum games to this crisis, to this human tragedy which has taken already too many lives, has created a breeding ground for terrorists, has created a breeding ground for extremists and we should not be under any illusion that through more killing we will kill extremists. We will provide them a breeding ground and they'll grow. So we need to come to the understanding that we need to put an end to the fighting, find a way to address the humanitarian crisis and then deal with the political process leading to stability in Syria but we need to do all of that with correct understanding, not illusions of the realities on the ground so that we can take the process forward rather than simply continuing the cycle of violence based on certain attempts to superimpose strategic interests, rivalries and the same zero-sum mentality that has taken us to this crisis. Mr. Zarif, are we talking about Sunni extremists and Shiites like Hezbollah? I'm talking about extremism in general which is taking shape here and also you referred to sectarianism which is also a very dangerous phenomenon. We believe that the frames of sectarianism cannot be contained in Syria. It will go beyond Syria, will engulf other countries in the region and even beyond. You need to take into account the fact that many of the extremists who are fighting in Syria come from all over the world, come from Europe, come from the Middle East, come from elsewhere and once they go back to their homes, this will be a disaster for all of us. So we need to address this before it gets even further out of hand. We need to address it through putting an end to the illusion that there can be a military solution, that there can be, that everybody wants to believe that a military victory is around the corner. So can you ask now live on Al-Arabiya Hezbollah forces to withdraw from Syria? I can ask all foreign forces to withdraw from Lebanon, from Syria and we will do our best. Wow, that's breaking news. We will do our best to have, well you got these really forces out of Lebanon and that was an achievement for Hezbollah if you're not happy with that. Well Hezbollah is Lebanese. It is Lebanese and it has made a great deal of effort for security and stability and territorial integrity of Lebanon. But what I can ask is for all foreign elements to leave Syria, to allow the Syrian people to decide their own future, to stop funneling funds and money and arms into Syria and to allow the Syrian people to decide their destiny, either in Geneva, hopefully in Geneva, although we were not invited, but we are hoping that Geneva can produce results because we are in the region. We will be affected by any disaster coming out of Geneva. Dr. Salemi, is it getting more complicated? It is, it is because things are still going on. I mean while everybody is saying that a military solution is not possible, in fact the two parties in Syria are still seeking a military solution. Let's face it and let's be honest about it. And even if they do not think they can win militarily, they are still trying and by trying they are attempting to gather as much forces as they can in Syria and outside Syria. So yes, all kinds of new recruits are going to Syria when we are talking now. It's a proxy war. It is also a proxy war. It's a war, it's an inter-Syrian war, but it is also a proxy war. Between who and who? And funds are coming, militants are coming. Recently the Battle Brigade came from Iraq into Syria. A lot of jihadists are still going into Syria. So let's face it, the two sides have not come to the same conclusion we would like them to come to that is they need a diplomatic and negotiated solution. Dr. Davutoglu, the Turkish troops have heavily deployed recently at the border points at the Turkish-Syrian borders. And please don't deny the overflow of militants across your border. Is this deployment going to help stop it? First of all, we have to be aware that there is one of the most destructive war continuing in Syria. In the last three years, 150,000 people are being killed. Millions are refugees, 700,000 of them are in Turkey. And this total casualty is much more than any war in the Middle East except Iranian Iraqi war. More than 1948, 1967, 1973 wars or more than Lebanese civil war. It's the biggest humanitarian crisis. Humanitarian crisis and security risk. And Turkey has 911 kilometer border. So we have, of course, we have to take certain caution on the border for our own national security. We have two priorities in Syria. Our national security and humanitarian situation tragedy in Syria. About the radicalism on the border, Turkey never allowed any radical group to use our border or to get control on the other side of the border. Where did they come from? They just appeared in Syria? No, there are many other ways to come there. And in principle, as a policy, we want, again we underline, without an exclusion. Turkey wants all non-Syrians to leave Syria immediately today, Hezbollah or other radical groups. Syria should be left to Syrians only. There should not be experts from other states. There should not be any military assistance to the regime, which is becoming a killing machine. The military solution is not an option, we all agree. But who did start? We have to be objective. Who did start military solution against peaceful demonstrators in 2011 when there was no single al-Qaeda or al-Nusra presence? For ten months there were peaceful demonstrations. The first armed group was formed by those generals of Syrian army who escaped from the army because of the being instructed to attack against their own people. That was the nucleus of free Syrian army. Even in January 1, 2012, June, there was no al-Qaeda presence on the ground, maybe a few hundred in Nusra. How did they come? Because of this mass created by the regime and opposition doesn't have air force or sqatbisites or chemical weapons or barrel bombs. Military option has been started by Syrian regime, by choice. In order to create a mass to claim that they are fighting against extremism. But our strategy is Turkey to protect our border. Therefore we have, of course, military presence, we have to protect our border. But Turkey is a democratic country. If there is any movement on the border, inside or outside, on that, it is transparent. Nobody can hide. There is no single Turkish presence in Syria. And the second is humanitarian aspect. We will open our border for refugees. We will continue to open. We spent around three billion dollars in and on the border on the other side. We will do more. Yes. Because it is an ethical responsibility for international community and for neighboring countries as and one day Syrian people will decide for their own future. Mr. Haas, President Rouhani yesterday in his statement focus a lot on extremist militant groups. Nearly that's all that he talked about when it came to Syria. Now the population of Syria is about 22.4 million people. And the whole ailment of a nation and the request for freedom and revolution has been minimized into Islamist groups, militant groups. Why you think so? Whenever civil wars start, the people who dominate civil wars tend to be people with guns. And even if civil wars or unrest is stimulated by people who have liberal peaceful views, it's the nature of civil wars that they tend to be pushed to the outside. So it's not the passive American policy in Syria and the region? I think like, I believe the United States has done things that were counterproductive. If you're going to say a political leader must go, you should be prepared to do two things to follow up. One is you should be prepared to do whatever is necessary to see that that person is removed from power. And then secondly you should be prepared to put into place something that will be stable and preferable, that will be progress. Where I believe the United States has gotten into trouble is articulating extremely ambitious goals but has actually carried out or implemented quite a modest policy. And this unevenness between American means and ends is one of the reasons, not the principal reason, but it's one of the reasons that Syria is the way it is. Mr. Jude, we don't understand why Iran wasn't invited to Geneva too. How do you expect Iran to engage, deliver in Syria if it's not sitting on the same table with you? I think you have to address that question to the United Nations because the invitations went from the Secretary General. It's the Arab group that put pressure on the Syrians. But let me tell you that at the end of the day what we saw in Montreux the day before yesterday on the 22nd was an international endorsement. I know that some cynics out there will say this was a media event and a speech-oriented event. That could well be the case, but it was international endorsement for a process that will hopefully begin, hopefully begins today, but if it doesn't at least tomorrow because I understand that there are now proximity talks ongoing to get the two parties to meet tomorrow. Reema, this is the third annual Arabiya debate that I personally take part in. I hope that I will not attend the fourth one next year while we're still talking about the ongoing crisis in Syria. I mentioned earlier in a session that had we all agreed on June 30th, 2012, when the Geneva I communique came out, had we all agreed that the conference should be convened, as soon as that communique came out, we could have averted a lot of the disasters that we're seeing on the ground today. We could have averted perhaps the rise and spread of these extremists. Who's fault is it? Well, it was a whole host of factors. Don't forget that in Geneva in June 2012 there were different interpretations as to what Geneva I meant. It took a year to come to a joint and common understanding of what the principles of Geneva I was and it took another eight or nine months to convene the conference. All across, we are seeing the situation worsening on the ground. The humanitarian situation that Foreign Minister Davidoğlu mentioned applies to Jordan as well, where we have today on our soil 20% of our population. Can Iran help and deliver in Syria if it's not taking part in the negotiations? I don't think, as the Foreign Minister of Turkey said, I don't think that it's all of us who will be negotiating. It's the Syrians who have to negotiate. That's not true. This is on the record and this is not what's happening on the ground. I'm coming to your point. I'm talking about the negotiations. But what's happening on the ground is a whole host of nationalities that are existing there on behalf of states and on behalf of non-states. There's a difference between the negotiating process and between the situation on the ground, which needs to be addressed. And I agree with everyone who said that all the foreign elements should withdraw from Syria and allow the Syrians to have a Syrian-led, Syrian-centric process of negotiation that will end the violence and the humanitarian crisis. And there is no humanitarian solution to the political crisis. There's a political solution that will end the humanitarian crisis. I'm about to ask Mr. Barzani if you wish to get your translation. Mr. Barzani, this question is for you. Kurdistan in Iraq is in a very difficult situation, an uncomfortable one because Tehran and the government in Baghdad is sending military aid to the Assad regime in its war with the Syrian opposition. There are media reports which are saying that the borders between Kurdistan and Syria have been used for that purpose. Why did you accept that? First of all, the borders between Kurdistan and Syria are only about 20 kilometers long, whereas the borders between the rest of Iraq and Syria are 600 kilometers long. So not one bullet crossed our border, ever, ever, ever. What is the position of the Kurds as to what is going on in Syria? I think you should know that the Kurds in Syria are deprived of even the right of citizenship. They are still deprived of this right. They have suffered so much. What is happening in Syria is a true humanitarian crisis, obviously the Kurds suffer along with everyone else. We now have 250,000 refugees in Kurdistan. They are Kurds from Syria. They're also refugees of other ethnicities, but obviously the majority are Syrian Kurds. We think that the Syrian situation has become more and more complicated, extremely worrisome, and it is a threat to the entire region. It has taken on a regional and international dimension, and more important than all of that, it has become a fertile ground that terrorists from all over the world go to. The western borders of Iraq and the eastern borders of Syria are under the control of terrorist organizations now. We hope that Geneva II will lead to a political solution because we believe that there cannot be a military solution. There must be a political solution, and we must give the opportunity to the Syrian people to decide their future themselves. Thank you. The Kurds are the weak link in Syria, isn't that right? Because they are a minority and they've been suffering for 40 years under oppressive regimes, al-Assad, father and son. How can you support self-rule for the Kurds in Syria? Any agreement taken by Kurds, by consensus, we will support. I don't know if you have any comments on what's been said. So you agree, Assad, is the magnet to extremism, as Mr. Kerry told Al-Arabiya's today? I would differ with that because extremism is a product of foreign intervention and product of short-sightedness. There are those in our region who believe that it's easy to pay for their fights and they tend to forget the experience in Afghanistan where those who created the Taliban ended up paying actually in their blood for what they had created. So what is being created in our region, the flames that are being fanned in our region will engulf everybody and particularly those societies which have an inherent and intrinsic affinity, at least in general terms to some of the messages that come out of these terrorist groups and these extremist groups. As you can see, as President Barzani said, the groups that are operating in Syria are operating in Western Iraq as well, same group. Some of them come from Chechnya, some of them come from Europe. They have no Syrian agenda. They have an agenda which goes far beyond Syria. Some of them come from Lebanon and some of them come from Iraq. Some come from Lebanon. Let's be clear. Are you talking about Sunni extremists only? I'm primarily talking about Sunni extremists because the Sunni extremists have filled this jihadi. But Iran is accused of also using some of these extremist groups for its own agenda. Bin Laden's family, some of it, were living in Iran. It would be preposterous to claim that Iran, which has always been the target of al-Qaida, last week I had to go to the airport to receive the body of one of my colleagues who was murdered in Yemen by al-Qaida elements. Another al-Qaida element blew up our embassy in Beirut and if you go around our embassy, you see the disaster that happened inside Beirut in their attack against the embassy. Do you know how many are killed in Syria? A lot have been killed in Syria from both sides and this is a disaster which we need to bring to an end. A lot have been killed and a lot of lives could have been saved had we not in the beginning hoped that Assad would be removed in two months. That was the illusion in the beginning of this crisis and that illusion led people to make statements and now they have entrenched in those statements and cannot deliver themselves out of those statements and this has created a mess in our region which has shed so much blood. So when will Assad leave? We need to stop talking about the past and talk about the future. I think this is a decision for the Syrians to make. I do not believe people outside Syria should tell the Syrians what they need to decide. Would Assad have survived without your support? Of course he would. Nobody would survive unless they have domestic legitimacy. Then why did you send Hezbollah? Why did you send Shiite militias? We're not sending people. Hezbollah has made its own decision and it said very clearly that it was defending its own. It was a life and death situation for its own. It was defending... The Shiite shrines. Shiite shrines are also important for Shiites. Let me finish. Shiite shrines are important for Shiites. You cannot send people to desecrate Shiite shrines and expect Shiites to be quiet when you beige a sectarian war in Syria. When people pay for mercenaries. And the Shiite shrines are in Kossayer? No, there are Shiite shrines everywhere and there are Shiite shrines in Damascus. Shiite shrines near Damascus. He has a point. Who's going to protect minorities? I see that there is a consensus that has been emerging in the past two, three days. And since good news are very rare in Syria, let's sort of concentrate on that consensus. And the consensus as mentioned yesterday by sort of Faisal in Montreux and today by Minister Zarif here, there is a consensus that non-Syrian fighters should withdraw from Syria. And therefore I challenge those who are present here to bring this to the Security Council. Let's all agree on a resolution calling immediately for the withdrawal of all non-Syrian forces from Syria since this consensus is emerging from Montreux and Damascus. The second point I would like to underline is the following. Although foreign fighters in Syria, both to the regime side and the opposition side, do not make more than 10% of those who are fighting in Syria, this will necessarily de-escalate the conflict there and help probably find a solution. But then we still have the war going on even if we are able to sort of extract all these foreign fighters. And here let's face it, we are faced with some bad faith in the various groups. And the bad faith is the following. The only text we have on which at least strong representative of the international community, at least the P5 have agreed is the Geneva one communique one year and a half earlier. And this communique has been in the past one year and a half the object of a lot of praise, but only of lip service. Whenever one party thought it was winning, it sought either to sort of sideline that a communique or to change its interpretation. And when one party felt it was weak, it stuck to this agreement. Let's take another decision today that the Geneva communique is the only text on which there is an international agreement. Let's start implementing it. We have lost one year and a half. It's high time we start implementing it. And so many lives and too much blood. Mr. Haas, US is expressing optimism in the talks on the nuclear program front. Help us understand how Iran is succeeding to give this positive image on the nuclear file, yet on its regional ambitions in the region, in the Middle East, we're not there yet. I didn't realize we had solved the Syrian problem. I will move to the second point, which is Iran nuclear program and its implication on the region. It's premature to be optimistic or pessimistic. We're simply in the early days of the implementation of the so-called interim agreement. Most of the large issues were postponed for the so-called comprehensive agreement. This is a diplomatic initiative of extraordinary complexity and difficulty and ambition. Like many people, not like everyone, but like many people, I applaud the effort and principle, the alternatives of an Iran with nuclear weapons. That alternative is clearly extraordinarily undesirable for the region because it wouldn't stop there. It wouldn't make the Middle East as bad as it is considerably worse. The idea of yet another war in the Middle East is also not a desirable proposition. So the emphasis on diplomacy and principle is desirable, but no one sitting here or watching this can underestimate for a second the scale of the ambition here and the scale of the difficulty or to put it bluntly, to come up with an agreement that is enough for the Iranians because there's not too much for everybody else. It will be no mean feat and it will require significant agreements on the part of Iran that it is so far at least not expressed a willingness to do to dramatically reduce its capabilities to produce and stockpile uranium of any sort, not to open up new ways of producing the sorts of material that would go into nuclear bombs. And absent that, there is simply not going to be a comprehensive agreement and then we will be forced to think about either of the alternatives and there's not a lot of time. And we're already hearing statements. President Rouhani told CNN on Thursday that Tehran wouldn't destroy 20,000 centrifuges just to have a comprehensive agreement with the West. Will the West accept a nuclear capable Iran? The question of how many centrifuges if any Iran might be allowed to maintain would obviously depend on this question of number, this question of what generation, what quality. There's also questions of inspections. There's a direct relationship between what sort of capabilities Iran may be allowed to keep and the confidence is that they are only doing that and no more. This is why foreign ministers or even others essentially are having this negotiation. But I would think the willingness of the West or the outside world to accept any capabilities in this area by Iran will be totally dependent upon the confidence we have that we could detect any Iranian move towards nuclear weapons with sufficient time that we could prevent it. So that is essentially the nature. Speaking personally, I don't represent the U.S. government. I don't believe at this point it's realistic to say Iran will have zero capabilities. Again, we're talking about a limited quantity of limited quality. And the question is whether Iran is willing to accept that kind of ceiling. And then if it were, then I believe Iran would get considerable, considerable, not total but considerable sanctions relief. Mr. Jude, so the interim deal has been signed. Iran seems to be delivering on the nuclear file. Mr. Zarif's statements now are very positive regarding Syria. He talked about many militants, not only the Sunni militants. Do Arabs feel more comfortable now? We in Jordan believe and have always believed that there should be a diplomatic solution to the Iranian nuclear file. However, the entire spectrum is not just about the Iranian nuclear file. And I think everybody appreciates that, including my good friend, Minister Zarif. And I think that to have, I don't know, you call it an interim agreement. Some people call it a partial agreement. It's certainly a first step towards a comprehensive agreement. And I think a comprehensive agreement and addressing the entire file of Iran's relations with the Arab world in particular have to be on the agenda. So I think it's a good step. It's not just about being comfortable or not comfortable. I think issues are real and they have to be addressed in a real way. So are Arabs ready to embrace Iran with its current regime? Are Arabs willing to embrace Iran? With its current regime and with a full comprehensive nuclear deal? It's not for Arabs to say what the regime in Iran should be like. I mean, we're asking everybody not to interfere in Syria. So I think it's important for all of us to apply the same standards to ourselves. It's about issues one more time. It's about issues. It's about problems. It's about threats. It's about interference. What are the issues? Many issues. Name them. The Iranian nuclear file is one of them. Interference in the internal affairs of Arab countries is another. The security of the Gulf states is a third. The support and interference of certain state players and non-state players in the Syrian theater is a fifth. I mean, I can go on. Go on. You have time. I think this is the first time that you'd like me to go on and not interrupt me. Maybe Mr Zarif would like to interrupt you. I agree with Minister Zarif that there is now a need to look at the future. We have a process that has begun on the Syrian file. We have a process that has begun on the Iranian nuclear file. There are still lingering issues, and I think all of you have to get rid of it. Mr Zarif, this is Al Arabiya platform. It's heavily watched in the Arab world by Arab people and leaders. Obviously, there are high insecurities in the region, in the Arab world. You seem to be giving a good face to the West, but what will you say to Arabs about these insecurities? Actually, my first visit was to an Arab country. I visited Iraq. I have visited... Your ally. Well, it was because of our foresight that we have good allies in the region, but I also visited Kuwait, Qatar... Is Saudi Arabia your good ally? United Arab Emirates, Oman, Jordan, Lebanon, Syria... To talk about what? To talk about the situation in the region, to talk about cooperation, to talk about good neighborly relations. Actually, one of... It may be interesting. I haven't written an op-ed yet as the minister for New York Times. You did for Shahgul Ausat. But I wrote one for Shahgul Ausat. Calling for a regional security and cooperation scheme in the region, because I really believe that what binds us together is far greater, that the minor differences of opinion and at times misunderstandings that divide us. I'm prepared. I have said it publicly. I'll say it again. I said it in a meeting this morning with His Royal Highness Prince Turkey Al-Faisal present that I'm prepared to go to Saudi Arabia. I have been prepared to go to Saudi Arabia at any time. But going is not enough. You two need to solve issues in the region. We need to start talking. And we need to start discussing issues. We need to start removing some of the concerns that we've so had. How? Do what? Talking, dialogue is a good thing. Talking is good. If you want to talk, you need to stop your predisposition. You need to stop assumptions. You need to be able to look anew at realities on the ground to see. I mean the question that you ask is a very bad question. You ask Nasir Al-Juda whether he was prepared to live with an Iranian regime. You're talking about the government, the only government other than Turkey that has the support of 73% of the population who go to the polling stations and vote for this government. Our head of state comes out of the polling booths. Comes out of the ballot box. So you cannot call this a regime. Hold on. We are talking about relations between Iran and its neighbors. We're interested in good relations. We want good relations and we believe the nuclear issue is an opening. It's an opening. People should not be concerned. We heard that some of our friends in the region were concerned that Iran was resolving an issue with P5 plus 1. Why are they concerned? Do they like Iran? Because you still want to enrich. No, no, no, no. If Iran agrees with the West on the nuclear issue, then it should remove a concern that Iran will never produce a nuclear weapon. Why is it that some countries in the region are concerned? Do they need pressure on Iran? Maybe because of the revolutionary guard. Maybe because of the practices of Iran in the region. No, come on. It's simply trying to portray and superimpose the problems that you have in the region. There are problems in the region. We have governance problems in the region. We have confidence deficit in the region. We need to address them. We have a mentality in the region that considers the problems of one group or one country as its asset. That mentality needs to be removed. And until that mentality is removed, we will not see security in this region. So we need to set aside cold war mentality. We need to start talking to each other and we need to stop blaming others for our own domestic problems. I just want to come in very, very quickly. Minister Zarif and I have opened lines of communication. He visited Jordan. We had excellent discussions with him there. But I hope you don't mind me saying that it's important not to monopolize democracy because we have our democratic process. Well, many other countries in the region have their own democratic process. I didn't call your country a regime. I have greatest respect for His Majesty the King. And I didn't call the government of Jordan a regime. I don't want to change this discussion into discussing internal regimes in the Middle East. That's not the main point of our discussion. And they all have their own issues and faults. And the Middle East is far from democracy. Mr Davutoglu, let's talk on a positive note. If there are sanctions that are already being lifted and you have trade relations with Iran, tell us how Turkey will benefit from a good relation with Iran between the West and Iran when it comes to the nuclear file. Yes, Turkish-Iranian relations, the historic relations. Our border has been the same for the last 350 years. So that border has been a border of stability and mutual interest of trade and all the business. Therefore, we try to do our best in order to solve this nuclear issue in order to integrate Iran to international political economy because that will be in the interest of everybody. I am sure all of you in this room remember in this hall, in May 2010, we signed an agreement in Iran, Turkey, Brazil and Iran in Tehran. And in that agreement, the nuclear issue was dealt directly and it was a very concrete agreement. At that time Iran didn't have 20% enriched uranium, MEU. And according to that agreement, we would have taken almost 70-80% of Iranian low enriched uranium. Assume that if that agreement was respected and implemented, Iran, there wouldn't be any sanctions right now and Iran wouldn't have MEU which is an issue of discussion today and there would have been a huge confidence building between Iran and international community as well as in the region. But unfortunately more sanctions being implemented rather than trying to use this opportunity, we missed four years. We were very happy because of the latest agreement because we definitely want to have a new system here about nuclear issue. We have two principles as Turkey. One, there should not be any nuclear power in our region, neither Iran nor any other country, I mean also Israel or others who didn't declare anything on their capacity. Secondly, there should not be any limitation on developing nuclear technology as a source of energy. Based on these two principles and NPT regime, everything could be solved. We are very happy now that there is a new process, Turkey will support. We wish to have that in the past. Another dimension just to refer to Cevat on the other issue about which is sectarianism, rise of sectarianism in the region, Turkish-Iranian relation, Arab-Iranian relation is very important to ease sectarian tension. But here we must have one simple principle. I want to say with full respect to Cevat, say the Zeynep shrine in Damascus is not a Shiite, it is a Muslim shrine. And Sunni is in Lebanon and Syria visited more Shiites, exactly. It is the dignity for all of us, for all Muslims. And I visited several Christian monuments in Homs, in Mala and other places, they are our cultural heritage. If everybody goes to Syria to protect their own sectarian holy places, then that mess will continue forever. Soon this will go to protect certain mosques, we should not forget. 1,500 mosques being destroyed by air force of Syria, Syrian regime. And Khalid bin Walid, who was a friend of Prophet Alaihissalam, his tomb was almost demolished totally by air bombardment. If we want to have peace in Syria, not sectarian approach, we have to say all of us, Muslim Christian, Sunni, Shiite, Musa'iri, Arab. This is, Syria is one of the most authentic country in the world. All those holy places, Christian holy places, Muslim holy places, Sunni, Shiite holy places are our places and our dignity to protect them. Otherwise, that cannot end. But you know what happened to the grave of Hojreb Nadi, they demolished the grave, they desecrated the body, they took the body out. And this is Ahmad, you know what is happening. It's nice to make comments of this nature, and I love to protect all the shrines, all the shrines. But this is what happened, and afterwards these incidents happened. So let's not talk about the past and focus on the future, let's put an end to this. We all need to put an end to this. Put an end to sectarianism, put an end to violence, put an end to bloodshed, put an end to extremism and make a different goal. Let's stop rehashing old history because old history is a bad history. Of course, if Sunnis or Shias in Turkey hear that Seda Zeynep has been attacked, I can assure you, thousands of them, Sunnis, regardless of seniority, will go and defend Seda Zeynep. That's what I mean. Therefore, if we allow others to go in Syria to defend, there is no end of this foreign intervention. All of us, they are criminals who did anything against any term. They are criminals. They are all bad things we can say, and we have to work together to prevent this. Dr Salemi, we should be working for the confrontation. I would like to reassure my two neighbours that although Christian shrines have been destroyed in Syria, I don't expect the crusade to start tomorrow to defend it. Christian monuments are our monuments. Well, mind you, that Ma'aloula nuns are still kidnapped by militants. Let's go back to Syria's business. I think that we are at a historical moment where two parallel processes are taking place. The negotiation on the Iranian nuclear issue and the negotiation on peace in Syria. The two processes have been to a certain extent insulated from each other from big powers. And this is good for a moment, but this insulation of the two parallel processes will not and cannot go forever. What we have to recognise is that for some countries one issue is extremely important. For the Russians, Syria is extremely important. For the Americans, Syria is priority number five or six. But for the nuclear issue, it is number one for the Americans and probably less so for the Russians. And when it comes to the region, certain countries are very invested in Syria and certain others are really worried about the nuclear issue. Therefore, we need to take into consideration the fact that many countries are invested in the two issues. Some Gulf countries are worried about the nuclear issue in Iran and are worried also about Syria. And are you worried about an escalation of sectarian war, Sunni Shiite? Certainly, but let us clearly recognise the fact that the two processes can help each other or quite to the contrary, ender each other depending on our behaviour in the next few weeks and months. Either we go into a comprehensive agreement of the nuclear issues in Iran and that would help certainly in the Syrian case. Or we keep sort of intervening, the various forces keep intervening in Syria and this could hinder the negotiation of the nuclear fire. Let us face it, we are at a moment where the insulation of the two processes that has been taking place until now cannot and will not be kept in the months to come. We are all talking about the fighting parties, the negotiating processes, the geopolitics and we are forgetting the main element of this, the Syrian people who are suffering and their suffering needs to end. The problem is that it is always a nice talk in such platforms yet you all go back to your own policies and governments and not much happens on the ground. I am about to ask Mr Barzani, Mr Barzani, you talked with some of the Arab officials in the region, we talked with them and they feel that the Iranian influence is very strong in Iraq and on this Iraqi government led by Maliki. What is the position of the Kurdistan region on this issue? There is no doubt that there are good relations between Iraq and Iran. Iraq is an independent state. We support a policy of openness and good neighborhood relations with Iran, Turkey, Syria, Jordan, Saudi Arabia and Kuwait. I think the good policy would be for Iraq to be open to all states. I will ask now a common question to all the guests. I would like you all to answer on this question in a minute because we are running out of time. I start with you Mr Barzani. Where do you expect the Middle East to be a year from now if we have a long life and if I can meet you again in Davos in a year from now, where would the Middle East be do you think? We hope to see a better Middle East than the one we have seen so far but in the last century in the Middle East we have seen lots of tensions. We have multiple nations, religions in the Middle East and these nations and religions have suffered deprivation and isolation namely the Kurdish nation. We are aspiring to the fact that everyone would reconsider their policies that they would call for coexistence so as we can build a new Middle East by the hands of the peoples of the Middle East so as to have cooperation and coexistence. That is very nice. Do you think this will happen within a year? Even if we start the process, even if it would last 10 years we would be very grateful. I'll get the honour of interviewing you all in a year time. Do you think the Middle East will witness a massive sectarian war or a peaceful end to the game? Unfortunately I find it impossible to be optimistic. I think the Middle East the year from now is likely to resemble the Middle East to today but be worse. Wars only end because one side is defeated or diplomacy succeeds. It's very hard for me to see how the civil war in Syria ends either way. I would expect the fighting to continue. There's no signs yet that the situation is ripe for serious diplomacy. I would think that the Israeli-Palestinian dispute would not be settled. I doubt we will have a conclusive result on the Iranian nuclear talks. Americans tend to be optimistic. One of the expressions we use in America is things have to get worse before they get better. It's quite possible in the Middle East things might have to get worse before they get even worse and that we could be still in the early stages of an era in the Middle East where borders count for less and less where states lose the ability to control what goes on within their borders where you have civil wars and proxy wars increasingly overlapping. Again, I'd love to come back a year from now and be totally wrong and be able to look at a new Middle East that looks demonstrably better but I actually think realism suggests that we should be prepared for Middle East that either resembles the current situation or is actually worse in some significant ways. Well, we can be theoretical and say we would wish to see countries and peoples enjoying democracy and plurism and justice and dignity and meritocracy and all that but the reality on the ground shows us that we're a long way away. So what I would say is, and if my good friend, His Excellency Amr Moussa would allow me to quote him from this morning when we were talking, let us remember what the Syrian Revolution was all about when it started. It was search for dignity and justice and equality before it became a civil war of a political nature that transformed itself into a civil war of an ethnic and sectarian nature before it transformed itself into a theater of operations for geopolitical agendas and international agendas as well. So I would say that I hope that if we do get to be interviewed by you next year that we're not going around in circles as we have been for the last three years. You and I did that last year and Mr. Davatuglu and Dr. Salemi and we are worse than we were last year. There you are. Mr. Davatuglu. Even in the worst situation I always try to be optimistic and visionary. What is, first we have to understand this Arab Spring. When it started there was a huge expectation. 2011 we all remember if we had the meeting today at that time we would be proud of Tahrir Revolution, proud of Tunisian transformation, etc. I think we shouldn't be losing our optimism despite of all the bad events on the ground. Why? First of all we have to understand what is going on in our region now is the end of Cold War. Cold War has ended in Balkans in the 1990s but continued in our region in different forms until now. And all these Baati structures, autocratic regimes doesn't have any legitimacy. They will disappear this way or the other way. History cannot flow back. We should not be forgetting in 1992, three years after the fall of the Berlin Wall there was a huge humanitarian disaster in Bosnia. And people were talking on Balkans as the place of hell. But what happened? Things have changed for two reasons. One, the will of the people on the ground, Bosniaks, great leaders like Ali Ezepegovic. Second, there was a support by the international community to finance new democracies through EU funds and to provide a security through NATO and UN system despite of the failure in Serebrnica later it functioned better. What we need in our region now is thinking that Middle East is a region full of blood, is Orientalism. This region created the biggest civilizations of the world. The same people, Arabs, Turks, Iranians, Sunnis, Shiites, Christians, Assyrians, all of Keldanis, they established the biggest, the most pluralistic cities, Baghdad, Cairo, all pluralistic Istanbul, Damascus, cities in the past. Therefore we should not be giving an inferiority complex to the people of the Middle Eastern. I trust the young generation. They will make a miracle with the new sense of belonging to their countries in Aleppo or in other places in the region. I trust to the deep conscious of this, but the failing aspect is visionary leaders like Ali Ezepegovic, failing aspect is UN, how it failed in Serebrnica, it failed in Syria. Failing aspect is there was no financial support for new emerging democracies in the region. There is a need of that and there is a need of a new security understanding. Therefore, especially Turkey, Iran, Arab countries all together. We should sit without any prejudice, without any dogma, without any stereotype. Sit and talk. Why do we have the richest natural resources but there is no single Middle Eastern country in the first ten economies? Why do we have all the historical background but our legacy has been destroyed on the ground? I am sure we will find out the best way if we have a self-confidence to us and to the next generations. Mr. Zarif, it's nice though but realistically, where will we be in a year time? I think we are at a crossroad. We can go either way, but we make the decisions. We are not simply agents of a rigid structure. There are no structural impediments to improve situation in the Middle East. I believe we, as actors, we are all determining our own future. We can agree to have a future that is worse than one that exists today, that is our decision. And next year, if we come here, we need to blame ourselves for that decision. We can also decide to start a dialogue, to start reaching understandings, to open our minds, to open our hearts, to stop old stereotypes, and to try to reach that better future. And we can do it. I'm sure we can do it. Last year, nobody believed that by now we could take this important step in the nuclear file. I believe next year we could come here having resolved the Syrian crisis. It is possible. It's for us to decide and for us to implement that decision and I believe it's done and Iran is committed to that future. Dr. Salemi. I don't share my friend Richard's pessimism. I think there are a number of hopeful signs. First, yes, the agreement on the Iranian nuclear issue. I think this is a positive sign. A second sign is the beginning of the implementation of the Egyptian roadmap, with the referendum of a new constitution and hopefully the next step to come. I was really pleased yesterday when our Tunisian friends present here in Davos told us that they voted the last article of their constitution tomorrow that is going to be a referendum on this constitution. So there are hopeful signs and I believe that among us all in the region, we have now a less romantic view that change can be taken and transitions can be bloodless and that change can come in a magical way. We are more realistic and we are more conscious of the fact that we all need functional state and not dysfunctional ones. So there are hopeful signs, but yes, on the other hand, I have to recognize that we are not close to the end game because there are still a number of very serious uncertainties before us. The most important one probably is the Syrian tragedy, which is not something that is going to be settled between today and tomorrow and it needs a lot of pressure on the domestic player and it needs a lot of involvement by all of us in order to push for a negotiated settlement. There are also uncertainty in Iraq and I would like to stress the fact that certain weeks there are more people killed in Iraq than in Syria itself and we should not forget that because uncertainty there, instability there is something that should worry us all. There is also the fact that the institutions are blocked in Lebanon for a while and we need to revive and reinvent these institutions. There are uncertainties also on the dialogue that should have been taking place in Yemen and is stalled right now. So there are hopeful signs, but there are reasons for uncertainty and that is why I say we are certainly not where we were three years ago with our romantic view of so-called Arab Spring, but we are not yet close to a real end game. We've run out of time. The Middle East is a huge area and there are a lot of issues to talk about. I'd like to thank you, our esteemed guests. I'd like to thank the audience and the World Economic Forum and definitely a big thank you to Al-Arabiya viewers. We were live in this session about the Middle East focusing on Syria and the impact of the nuclear deal on the Middle East. Thank you for watching.