A high-level Syrian official has confirmed that the government in Damascus is open to dialogue initiatives to resolve the ongoing crisis, in particular because Moscow continues to advise Syrian authorities that they must respond to international initiatives in order to improve the regime’s image abroad and to provide their allies with something with which to endorse them. The Russians have also been emphasizing that the armed Syrian opposition faces a dilemma regarding whether to engage the regime in dialogue: agreeing to a compromise — thus forfeiting their call for toppling the regime and therefore possibly further dividing their ranks — or refusing to compromise, which could lose them diplomatic clout.

Despite recognizing the benefits of dialogue, the Syrian official, during a brief visit to Beirut, said that there are two considerations determining the way to deal with such initiatives.The first involves what the regime refers to as "sovereign issues." For instance, the same official stresses that by agreeing to negotiate with only a single, specific Syrian official, the opposition is undermining the dialogue before it even starts, or rather, is confirming that the opposition has no intention of seriously engaging in dialogue. It is obvious that the Syrian official is referring to a statement by Moaz al-Khatib, head of the National Coalition for Syrian Revolutionary and Opposition Forces, suggesting Syrian Vice President Farouk al-Sharaa as an acceptable negotiator for a dialogue with the regime.

The official asserted that “this cannot happen, we can never agree on any preconditions to negotiate,” especially since the regime settled that issue at the time of the current government’s formation. Former UN envoy Kofi Annan — on July 8, 2012,  during his last meeting with President Bashar al-Assad — suggested a dialogue between the conflicting parties and that Assad nominate a representative for it. On that same day, Assad told Annan that Ali Haidar, minister of national reconciliation, had been tasked with the mission. Since Haidar is the head of a wing of the Syrian Social Nationalist Party, he is (from the Baath Party’s point of view) a member of the internal opposition that agreed to take part in parliamentary elections held on May 7, 2012, and to participate in the current Syrian government. Sources have confirmed that Annan had at the time questioned Assad about Haidar’s ability to accomplish his mission. Assad replied that Haidar was completely capable of representing the government as well as the Syrian president, since their relationship goes back to the early 1990s, when they were classmates as ophthalmology students. Syrian officials did not, of course, reveal a hidden element behind selecting Haidar: On May 2, 2012, his son was killed by jihadists, which given the implied sensitivities, complicates Haidar being suggested as a negotiator.

The Syrian official asserted, "The importance of the issue is not limited to the fact that we reject any conditions imposed by insurgents, but that we also want to make sure that those negotiating with us are powerful on the ground or are capable of actualizing whatever may result from dialogue. This very point seems intractable. It is very well known that the regime in Syria makes decisions, commits to them and compels others. But who is responsible on the other side of the conflict? Who is capable of showing commitment and compelling militants? These questions are yet to be answered.” He also revealed that an aide to Lakhdar Brahimi, Annan's successor, had told Syrian officials that his team had to that point counted 134 armed groups in Syria, all working independently of each other, without any group having authority over the other. “Who would we negotiate with?” he mused.