IRAN and Syria signalled that they were ready to resume dialogue with the United States, but both regimes insisted that the situation in the region would only improve if Washington changed its policies.

Responding to overtures by Tony Blair and American mediators, President Ahmadinejad said that Tehran had always been ready to talk to America if certain conditions were met. “The conditions concern the attitude of the American Government. If they correct their behaviour, we will talk to them like others,” he said.

He did not elaborate, but in the past Iran has demanded that the United States unfreeze Iranian assets held by the US Government, withdraw forces from Iraq, drop its support for Israel and stop its efforts to halt Tehran’s nuclear programme.

The Iranian leader said that he would explain in an open letter to the American people. But any hopes of a rapprochement with the West seemed doomed. Mr Ahmadinejad repeated his determination to press ahead with uranium enrichment work, which some fear is a cover to make fissile material needed for an atomic bomb.

Mr Ahmadinejad predicted that Iran would soon master the nuclear fuel cycle. “I am very hopeful that we will be able to hold the big celebration of Iran’s full nuclearisation in the current year,” he said, referring to the Persian calendar year, which ends in March.

The move would put paid to any significant improvement of relations with the US and Britain, who are pushing for sanctions against Iran unless it drops its nuclear ambitions.

Experts on the region suspect there is more room for progress with Syria. Yesterday Tishrin, the government daily newspaper, said: “Syria is ready for dialogue with the United States to achieve security and stability . . . and extends its hands sincerely as always waiting for a response. The ball is in their court.”

But Syrian analysts believe that it is Washington and London who need to be “brought in from the cold”, not a regime once labelled a central spoke in the “Axis of Evil”.

Elias Murad, the Editor of al-Baath newspaper, the mouthpiece of the ruling Baath party, told The Times: “Syria can bring stability to the Middle East, and Bush and Blair now know that. We have good relations with the resistance in Iraq, in Lebanon and in Palestine and we can therefore offer stability.”

The question being asked by some of Syria’s political classes, however, is, why should we help? Ayman Abdel Nour, an economist and key reformer in the Baath party, said: “What can Britain offer Syria? It has followed America’s policy of isolating Syria, but has discovered it did not work. The Gulf States are flush with oil money and have been investing heav-ily in Syria, meaning economic sanctions have not worked.”

The US imposed trade sanctions on Syria in 2004 over its alliance with the militant groups Hezbollah and Hamas, over interference in Lebanon and for alleged support for foreign fighters crossing its border to fight US troops in Iraq.

Times Recommends

• The Japanese Prime Minister is doomed: or is he?
• Brighton company 'involved in cyber attack'
• The art of survival: it’s all in the mind