Strategypage writes of Assad's gains:
[The] Assads are having greater battlefield success in the last three month mainly because of the foreigners, who are there mainly because of Iranian cash and advisors. Iran has recruited an army fanatic Shia men, mainly from Iraq and Lebanon to revive the combat capabilities of the Assad forces. That, plus the growing divisions among the rebels has allowed Assad forces to defeat the rebels in many areas. There are dozens of separate battlefields in Syria and on most of them the rebels continue to hold their own. But in key areas like Damascus, Aleppo, the Lebanese and Jordanian borders, the Assad forces are pushing the rebels back.
Despite its own cash flow problems at home Iran continues to supply crucial support for the Assad government and those efforts are succeeding. Iran has not put a lot of Iranians into Syria, but there is a constant supply of cash (in the form of dollars and euros), very effective military, security and other advisors and some equipment and weapons.
Both Iran and Syria are using WMD as a shield to kill rebels. Syria most directly and Iran by holding out the prospect of a fake nuclear deal we will be willing to pretend to believe while loosening sanctions on Iran that will make it easier for Iran to afford their efforts in Syria. Negotiations make it more difficult for us to tighten sanctions since enough in our foreign policy establishment see a Nobel Peace Prize dangling before their eyes even as Iran wages war in Syria.
Assad has been able to launch a whole new war, as I once said he had to have in order to have a chance at winning.
But can Assad endure the casualties to hold this ground? Iran may have provided Hezbollah and a Shia Foreign Legion to spearhead Assad's attacks into rebel territory, but Assad still needs his demoralized ground forces to hold the ground taken. I have my doubts they can do this.
If the rebels give ground where the spearheads lead, inflicting casualties as a delaying action; and then swing on offense into "cleared" areas to inflict casualties on the weak point of the Assad regime--the militias and nearly shattered infantry--the rebels can break the Assad forces before the war of starvation and poverty starts to erode rebel morale.
Our tangible help with arms, supplies, intelligence, and advice would go a long way to giving the rebels hope that their sacrifice is not for nothing and that they can win.
There is no reason the rebels should break first. If the rebels do break first, it will be because we failed to deny Assad support from abroad and failed to support the majority rebels in an effort to actually win.
But what the Hell. Maybe Kerry and Lavrov will share a Nobel Peace Prize. That has to count for a lot, right?
UPDATE: This would be a humanitarian project as well as one that would bolster rebel civilian morale:
One-third of Syria’s population has been displaced from their pre-war homes. Children have not been in school. Parents are not working. More than 2 million refugees have crossed into neighboring countries, particularly Jordan and Lebanon. More than 4 million people are displaced inside the country, and little food or medical aid is being distributed with any regularity. With millions of lives at risk, the United Nations has called for greater humanitarian access to all parts of Syria – as well as more aid donations from the global community.
And a major humanitarian effort that Assad, Iran, and Russia might oppose because they understand this would essentially be a logistics effort for the rebellion would make them look bad in the process.
