With Iranian passport, it will be a joke if they have access to any negotiation.

in the form or Al Qaeda-sympathetic Sunni militants. And of course, Saudia Arabia IS included in the talks.

Really, if you are going to have peace talks to try to end a war, and you eliminate from participation all those accused of acting badly in the area, are your talks realistically going to include those with the power to end the conflict?

How can you ever get peace if you don't talk to your enemies?

I don't really follow the logic.

Yet Saud *is* included in the talks.
So all I can say is wtf?

I suggest that you google the keywords "cyclops metaphor" because the metaphor seems fitting.

The only thing the US and the West want to negotiate is Assad's exit, and I don't think he's the least bit interested in that.

The US demanded that Iran be excluded because it does not accept this precondition. Since Iran is Syria's key regional ally, it's hard to see these talks accomplishing anything.

And that's not even to mention the problems with the Syrian rebel delegation, the Istanbul Hilton set, who represent a fraction of a faction of emigre opposition and don't speak for the guys on the ground with the guns.

Communique that all the other participants have agreed to. Then Iran backed away from the Communique. I think all sides would prefer to have Iran involved in the negotiations as long as the agree to the same preconditions that everyone else has.

Last week, even Kerry was speaking of the potential of Iran being useful on the sidelines or in the meetings - if they accepted the communique.

I suspect that if - and that's a big if - this conference becomes useful, Iran could always be included at a later point, if it could be useful. At this point, I don't think Iran has backed away from arming Hezbollah, which has been one of the largest groups of foreign fighters on the ground in Syria. This could be a reason for excluding SA and the Gulf States as well -- except it might be thought that inclusion could pressure them to cut any aid to the jihadis. The difference might be that - as Iran wants to be invited and included by the world - THAT INCLUSION could be something that we can get something in return for - ie stopping the arming of Hezbollah.

I noticed that Lavrov has toned done his language today - though he still calls it a mistake. It may be that one factor that gives what little hope there is that there might be some possibility of making Syria less unstable and violent is that Lavrov and Kerry have managed to create a good working relationship and both are seriously working to make things better. (Here's a Russian article that was written after not quite as silly as the media thought gift of potatoes - http://voiceofrussia.com/2014_01_19/Kerrys-potato-gift-to-Lavrov-a-sign-of-friendship-9712/ As to not silly, Russian farmers will experiment with them - http://voiceofrussia.com/news/2014_01_21/Lavrov-sends-potatoes-presented-by-John-Kerry-to-Russian-farmers-for-experimental-cultivation-0216/ )

Now neither country will accept anything against their interests because the diplomats respect each other - but it means that things are less likely to get derailed over minor disagreements.

U.S. President Barack Obama spoke with his Russian counterpart Vladimir Putin by telephone on Tuesday, and the leaders discussed an internationally sponsored conference on Syria, the Kremlin said in a statement.

The conference in Switzerland is due to start on Jan. 22. The United States and Russia have found themselves taking opposing sides during the three-year conflict in Syria. The Kremlin said the tone of the conversation was “businesslike and constructive.”

http://english.alarabiya.net/en/News/world/2014/01/21/Putin-Obama-discuss-Syria-conference-over-telephone.html