Leading article: Two nations that hold the key to Middle East peace

Not so long ago, a top-level meeting between Syria and Iran, two members of America's "axis of evil", would have caused alarm in western capitals. It is a testament to how dramatically the political situation has changed in the Middle East in recent months that some in the West regarded the weekend's visit of the Syrian President, Basher al-Assad, to Tehran as a potentially positive development.

According to France, which hosted President Assad in Paris last month, the purpose of the Syrian visit was to help resolve Iran's stand-off with the West over Tehran's nuclear programme. President Assad is said to have promised the French President, Nicolas Sarkozy, that Syria will help to persuade Iran to offer proof that it is not developing nuclear weapons. Unsurprisingly, there is an alternative view. There are those who suspect the real purpose of Syria's visit was to reassure Tehran about the firmness of the alliance between the two countries.

Related articles

• Robert Fisk: Syrian leader gets top billing in Middle East by doing nothing
• Search the news archive for more stories

The truth probably lies somewhere in between the two. President Bashar would doubtless like Syria to be accepted into the respectable international fold. But he will be under great internal pressure not to jeopardise relations with Iran in pursuit of this goal. This meeting is likely to have been a testing of the water, rather than an attempt to rush things.

But the world is right to pay close attention to relations between these two nations. Between them, Syria and Iran hold the key to peace in the region. They are the two major states that refuse to recognise Israel. Both are sponsors of Hizbollah, Israel's Lebanese tormentor. In the past, they have also sponsored Palestinian militants with weaponry and funding. A peace deal between Syria and Israel would be immensely difficult, not only because of Hizbollah, but due to the complexities of the territorial dispute over the Golan Heights, which was captured by Israel in the 1967 war.

The prospects for a meeting of minds with Iran, while it continues to enrich uranium, look more vanishing still. An informal deadline for a response from Tehran to a western package of incentives for Iran to freeze its enrichment activities expired this weekend. A fourth round of sanctions on Iran from the UN Security Council now looms into view.

Yet despite all this, there would seem to be grounds for some hope. Damascus seems serious about doing a deal with Israel, even if it balks at pressuring Tehran over enrichment. The Israeli Prime Minister, Ehud Olmert, has been moving in that direction as well (although there is no guarantee that whoever succeeds him will continue to do so). There are also signs that elements within the Iranian regime are concerned about the prospect of further international isolation. In his blustering assertion of Iran's right to develop nuclear power yesterday, President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad did not rule out further international talks on the matter. Furthermore President Ahmadinejad's power and popularity seem to be one the wane, which can only be encouraging for the prospects of some sort of rapprochement between Tehran and the West.

Optimism is never a very sensible basis for approaching Middle Eastern politics. As we have seen so many times, violence can quickly scupper the best laid plans. But it is increasingly clear that a comprehensive deal involving Tehran, Jerusalem and Damascus is the best hope for a more stable future. The road to such a deal will be long, arduous and dangerous, but at least there exists a map of sorts.