The interview was conducted by publicist and author Jürgen Todenhöfer who has written extensively about the Middle East, Iraq and Afghanistan.

Jürgen Todenhöfer: Mr President, members of the opposition and Western politicians say that you are the main obstacle to peace in Syria. Would you be ready to step down as president if this could bring peace to your country and stop the bloodshed?

Bashar al Assad: A president shouldn't run away from a challenge. And we have a national challenge now in Syria. The president shouldn't escape the situation. But on the other hand he can stay in the position of the president only when he has public support. So this question should be answered with a public answer by the Syrian people, through an election, not by the president. I can nominate myself; I can run for the election or not run; but to leave or not to leave - this is up to the Syrian people.

Do you think that you still have a majority behind you in your country?

If I don't have the public support how could I stay in this position? The United States is against me, the West is against me, many regional powers and countries are against me and the people against me - how could I stay in this position? So the answer is: Of course I still have public support. How much? What's the percentage? That's not the question. I don't have numbers. But of course to stay in this position in this situation you must have public support.

I've been to some of the demonstrations - even in Homs, in peaceful demonstrations. Isn't it legitimate if people demand more freedom, more democracy and less power in the hands of one family, less power in the hands of secret services?

We don't have power in the hands of a family, in Syria we have a state, we have institutions, maybe not the ideal institutions, but we don't have a family that runs a country. So we have a states. Now we can answer the first part. Of course they have the right, they have the legitimate right, whether they're demonstrators or not. As for freedom actually the majority of the people ask for reform, political reform, not freedom. We have freedom, not the ideal freedom, but the reform let's say to have more participation in the power, in the government, in everything else in the country. This is legitimate and the majority are not in the demonstrations. We have people who have demonstrated and who have not. But this is legitimate.

A question that everybody is asking in the Western countries: Who has killed these thousands of civilians who have died in this conflict? The opposition blames you.

If you want to know who killed you have first to know who has been killed. We can not deal with the criminal without knowing about the victims. Those victims that you are talking about - the majority of them - are government supporters. So how can you be a criminal and the victim at the same time? The majority are people who support the government and large parts of the others are innocent people who have been killed by different groups.

Would you admit that some of these - or a certain percentage of these innocent civilians - have been killed by your security forces?

No, we don't have those figures. We have an investigation committee about all the crimes that happened in Syria. But from the lists that we have, from the names that we have the highest percentage are people who have been killed by gangs, by different kinds of gangs, al Qaeda or extremists or outlaws - people who have escaped the police for years.

So you say the rebels whom you call terrorists have killed more civilians than the security forces?

Not really. They killed more security and soldiers than they killed civilians. I'm talking about the supporters.

But if you talk only about the civilians: Did the rebels kill more civilians than the security forces, or did the security forces kill more civilians?

That's what I mean. If you talk about the supporters of the government, the victims from the security and the army are more than the civilians.

You said there are investigations against those members of the security forces who might have killed innocent civilians. Have some of them been punished?

Yes, of course. They were detained in prisons. They are subject to trial now. Like any other crime.

Who committed the massacre of Houla in which more than 100 people were brutally murdered - among them many children?

Gangs came in hundreds from outside the city, not from inside the city. And they attacked the city. And they attacked the law enforcement forces unit inside the city, and then they killed many families, and as you mention children and women. Actually, those families that have been killed they are government supporters, not opposition.

I was told by somebody who lives in Houla and who lost members of his family, he told me that the killers were wearing army uniforms. Why did they wear army uniforms?

Just to accuse our government. That's happened many times. They committed a crime, they published videos, fake videos, and they wear the soldier uniforms, in order to say this was the army that's been killing the people.

You say this is a strategy of the rebels?

Yes, yes, from the very beginning. They do it all the time, not only in Houla, in many places.

Who are those rebels whom you call terrorists?

They are a mixture, they are an amalgam of al Qaeda, other extremists not necessarily al Qaeda and outlaws who escape the police for years, mainly smuggling drugs from Europe to the Gulf area ... It's a mixture of different things.

Would you say that all these rebels are terrorists?

It depends on the act. If they attack people and burn and destroy of course this is terrorism by the law. But you have people being implicated without being criminals for different reasons. Sometimes for a financial reason: they pay them money, sometimes under threat, and sometimes for certain illusions and delusions. So not all of them are terrorists. That's why we observe many of them when they give up the arms.

What is the role of the United States in this conflict?

It's part of the conflict. They offer the umbrella and the political support to those gangs to destabilize Syria.

You say the United States is politically supporting the rebels. Is that correct?

Yes, exactly.

And you say these rebels whom you call terrorists kill civilians. This means that you're accusing the American government of being at least partly responsible for the killing of innocent Syrian civilians. Is that correct?

Of course. Exactly. As long as you offer any kind of support to terrorists you are a partner - whether you send them armament, or money, or public support, political support in the United Nations, anywhere, any kind of support this is the implication.

You know that Western politicians see the situation differently.

Yes.

And they're discussing a military intervention in Syria. How would you react? Would you retaliate against Western countries?

It's not about retaliation - it's about defending our country. Our priority is to defend our country, not to retaliate against anyone. This is our duty, and this is our aim.

And you're prepared for such an attack?

Whether you're prepared or not, you're going to defend your country. But you have to be prepared.

If for you the United States is part of the problem, why don't you negotiate with them? Why don't you invite Hillary Clinton to Damascus? Why don't you make the first step?

We never closed our fronts ... as long as they want to help in solving the problem in Syria, provided that they're serious and honest. But they closed their doors. We don't have any problem. We always announced publicly that we're ready for any kind of help or dialogue.

You would be ready for a dialogue with Hillary Clinton? You would be ready to walk with her through these streets of Damascus to show her the hospitals? To show her the situation in the city?

As I said: We don't close the doors in front of anyone, including the Americans or any other one, it's not particularly Mrs Clinton or any other American official. Of course we don't have a problem. We did it many times with others to walk in the streets as you mention. And we'll do it again. We don't have a problem of course.

Let's come to the internal situation. Are negotiations with a different opposition group still a realistic option or do you think you have to fight this conflict out till the bitter end?

Dialogue is a strategic option. Whatever you do, whatever other option you have you need a dialogue. At least to make sure that you can do something peacefully. But as long as we have terrorism and as long as the dialogue doesn't work you have to fight the terrorism. You cannot keep making dialogue while they're killing people in your army.

But you could have a dialogue with those who are not terrorists.

We had a dialogue last summer, and we kept inviting them. Some of them accepted the invitation and they made dialogue, and they participated in the elections of the parliament, and they had some seats in the parliament, and they have portfolios in the recent government.

But they got only two percent in the last elections.

Yes, that's not our fault. We don't have to offer them the percentage (chuckles). We don't create the government.

Would you be ready also to talk to the opposition in exile?

Yes, and we've announced that. We said we're ready to talk to anyone.

Would you be ready to discuss and negotiate also with rebels if they lay their weapons down?

Definitely. And we observe them, and some of them live normal lives now, they don't have any problems.

What about the Kofi Annan plan? Has it failed?

No, it shouldn't fail. And Kofi Annan is doing so far a difficult but a good job. We know that he has many obstacles, but it shouldn't fail. It's a very good plan.

What is his main obstacle?

The main obstacle is that many countries didn't want [it] to succeed. So they offer political support and they still send armaments and money to terrorists in Syria. They want it to fail this way.

Who sends weapons to your country? Which is the country that's supporting the rebels most?

If I don't have concrete evidence I will tell you the indications. Those countries announce publicly that they're going to support those terrorists. Mainly the minister of foreign affairs of Saudi-Arabia and his counterpart in Qatar. They announced publicly they're going to support them - regarding the armaments. Turkey I think offers logistic support for smuggling.

And the United States?

The United States mainly what we know so far they offer political support.

Means of communication also?

We have some information about this, but I didn't mention it because we don't have concrete evidence to show it to you.

What about Kofi Annan's plan for a united government, for a unity government, for a government formed by the different groups, with the opposition groups, with Baath party members?

You're talking about the Geneva conference now.

His plan for a unity government, yes.

We talked about it in Syria. Now we have a unity government, where you have the opposition that's participated in the parliament, participated in the government. But you should have criteria. How do you define opposition? You may have thousands, tens of thousands, hundreds of thousands, or millions. Could they participate? You need this kind of government the democracy needs criteria and needs mechanisms. For me the mechanism is the elections. If you represent the people you go to the elections, you run the elections, you win seats, you can come to the government. While if you're only opposition and you don't have any seats in the parliament who do you represent? Yourself?

But for example the opposition in exile didn't participate in these elections. Would you accept members of the opposition in exile to participate in an interim government.

If they can comply with our rules, our laws, they haven't participated in criminal acts, or asking the NATO or other countries to attack Syria - which is against our law - they have the right to participate. We don't have a problem. Many of the opposition inside Syria participated. Why ban the opposition outside from this participation? We don't have any reason as a government.

Mr President, when you think about what happened to the leaders of Egypt and Libya. When you remember the pictures that we all have seen on TV, aren't you scared for your family, your wife, your little children?

I want to describe two different situations you're talking about. Describing what happened to Gadhafi, this is savage, this is crime. Whatever he did, whatever he was, nobody in the world can accept what happened, to kill somebody like this. What happened to Mubarak is different: it's a trial, any citizen when he watches a trial on TV he would think ‘I don't want to be in that position,' so the answer is 'Don't do like them,' but to be scared you have to compare: Do we have something in common? No, it's a completely different situation. What's happening in Egypt is different from what's happening in Syria. The historical context is different, the social fabric is different, and our policy was always different. So what's in common? You cannot compare, you cannot feel scared or make you feel sorry or pity or whatever.

But nevertheless you have opposition, you have rebels and you know what these rebels want to do. So my question - I repeat it: Aren't you scared for your family?

The most important thing is that you do think that you comply with your convictions. This is why you can't feel scared because the people can disagree with you but at least trust you that you're doing something for the interest of your country, when you defend your country - why be scared? When you do something to protect your people, why be scared? You may say that you have thousands of victims, what if you have hundreds of thousands of victims. That's what's supposed to be in Syria.

But in the end: What is the solution to this conflict in this country? And I repeat my question: Do you think you have to fight this conflict out till the bitter end?

We have two axes of the solution. The first one, you have to fight terrorism. There is no question about fighting terrorists, nowhere in the world. What would you do if somebody killed civilians, killed innocent people, killed children, killed soldiers...

These are terrorists for you?

…and killed soldiers and killed the police and killed anyone. You have to fight with them if he's not ready for dialogue, and that's what we've seen so far. The other axis is to make dialogue with different political components and at the same time to have reform, to have everyone participate. And the people will define, will decide who should be our representative, or the people's representative, through the ballot box.

Couldn't the reforms come a little faster?

It's subjective. You think it's faster, I think it's slower. But in the end: the principle is you do as fast as you can without paying a heavy price or without having a lot of side effects. So as fast as possible and that's not related to me or to the government or to the state. That's related to the objective circumstances in Syria.

Mr President, where would you like to see your country in two years' time? What is your vision for Syria?

I'd like to see it every year in prosperity. Prosperity means better economy, better in every aspect, culturally, whatever, but that needs security. Without security you cannot dream about prosperity. That's how I see it.

Editor: Rob Mudge