Is it time to try to talk Syria in from the cold? Yes, if only because that offers one of the best answers to the problem of Iran’s ambitions in the region, and to Iraq’s instability.

The regime in Damascus has made a lot of the journey itself already. David Miliband’s trip there was the public face of several years of quiet and growing contact.

The question is where it goes from here. A limited deal with Israel is the obvious target, and if it could be pared down to bald questions of territory, it might just be possible. But it probably lies on the other side of familiar Israeli demands about renouncing Hamas, Hezbollah and Iran, which Syria is not about to meet.

The better immediate goal is perhaps simply to extend the economic ties that have been growing so fast, in order to solidify the huge changes that Syria has already made.

In the context of the Israeli-Palestinian deadlock, Tony Blair and Gordon Brown have long talked about economic development of the Palestinian territories as one route that can be pursued even when political progress has stalled. There, it has come to seem ridiculously blithe, ignoring the block that the political crisis puts on all but rudimentary commercial life. But in Syria, the regime’s steady steps to drop the ideology of state ownership and Arab socialism mean that the economy offers a smooth way ahead where diplomacy does not.

The economic route is certainly clearer. Bashar Assad’s presidency has been more conciliatory in recent months towards the European Union and even Israel than many expected. Damascus let its informal contact with Israel (through Turkish mediators) be known, while it has explored trade ties with the EU. Assad backed the deal in the summer to resolve the latest constitutional crisis in Lebanon, and promised to restore normal diplomatic ties.

But that has to be weighed against more hostile gestures. There is the repeated assertion of the closeness of links with Iran. Assad is still treated with suspicion, or worse, by fellow Arab leaders as well as Europeans for his regime’s alleged role in the 2005 killing of Rafik Hariri, the Lebanese leader. There is the ambiguous relationship with Hezbollah. That is enough to make his overall aims opaque. It may be simpler to deduce that he has no consistent strategy.

Even so, how should the EU and the new US president respond? The overwhelming vote must be for closer contact. The strongest reason for that is Iran. When Barack Obama takes office in January, Iran will be near the top of foreign policy worries. There is no attractive plan for responding to its nuclear programme and its pursuit of regional clout. Yet Iran’s strategy depends heavily on close relations with Syria. Western diplomats have talked for years about peeling Syria away from that pact, and yet seen little that gave them real grounds for hope.

Now Syria has given them some signs. The economic shift shows that Assad recognises that prosperity is possible only with at least a half-step towards the market economy, and towards EU trade.

The quiet Israel talks represent a huge change, even if the barriers to conclusion appear solid. The lack of response from Damascus to an Israeli airstrike on what Israel called a nuclear site, and a US commando raid over the Iraqi border last month, suggest a desire to put the normal reflex of anger behind the pursuit of wider goals.

The Foreign Secretary’s visit is well timed. It’s a good point to ask Syria how far the change goes.

Times Recommends

• Please help: maimed children of war want their lives back
• Cabal seizes diamond riches to buy power
• White House gatecrashers got to the president