Iran is increasing their assistance to Assad:
As Syria's war nears the start of its fourth year, Iran has stepped up support on the ground for President Bashar al-Assad, providing elite teams to gather intelligence and train troops, sources with knowledge of military movements say.
This further backing from Tehran, along with deliveries of munitions and equipment from Moscow, is helping to keep Assad in power at a time when neither his own forces nor opposition fighters have a decisive edge on the battlefield.
Assad's forces have failed to capitalize fully on advances they made last summer with the help of Iran, his major backer in the region, and the Hezbollah fighters that Tehran backs and which have provided important battlefield support for Assad.
But the Syrian leader has drawn comfort from the withdrawal of the threat of U.S. bombing raids following a deal under which he has agreed to give up his chemical weapons.
The help is with advisers and specialists rather than troops. For that, Iran turned to Hezbollah and a Shia foreign legion paid for by Iran.
Strategypage writes that Iran is focusing more on reviving the effectiveness of Syria's army, which I take it means Iran has reached the limits of using Hezbollah and a Shia foreign legion as the shock troops for Assad. Read the whole thing, which covers much more.
Our southern front is getting ready to open, it seems:
Several activists said the attacks came as opposition fighters were preparing to launch a push from the area toward Damascus in coming days. The rebels have tried several times over the past two years to reach the capital but were stopped by Syrian troops.
The activists, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because they were speaking about military plans, claimed that thousands of U.S.-trained rebels are getting ready to attack government positions throughout Daraa province.
Assad's forces are bombarding the area to disrupt the coming attacks.
I don't know if we want to win, since we apparently conceive our support for southern rebels as a means to pressure Assad for negotiations (I should be grateful that Kerry doesn't see this support as a means to getting Assad to sign a global warming pact).
When the fight to win and we fight to negotiate, the imbalance of apparent will and effort does not bode well for us. Of course, that doesn't mean the southern rebels have to agree with our goals. As long as Saudi Arabia and others are willing to back these rebels for the win, our ridiculous notions of strategery aren't the last word.
There is a general stalemate with both sides making new efforts to gain traction this year.
The rebels seem to have endured the morale hit of that chemical arms deal without folding.
Assad has failed to deliver a knock-out blow as he promised his supporters he'd achieve. How is base of support keeps enduring the casualties his forces have endured is beyond me.
And Hezbollah seems eager to get out of Syria despite Iranian pressure to keep fighting.
The odds remain against Assad, as I've long thought. He has too few ground forces (let alone reliable and fresh forces) to battle all his enemies from Aleppo in the north to the Jordanian border (let alone anything east of the Aleppo-Damascus arc).
Unless we cut a deal with Russia that saves Assad, I don't see how Assad can win the war of attrition he is in.
