How many more Syrians will die between today and Jan. 22, when the so-called Geneva II peace talks are due to get under way? Indeed, given the uncompromising noises coming out of Damascus, is there any chance that the talks, some two long months from now, will actually take place at all?

Assad’s Foreign Ministry has issued a statement saying that it will be attending but that it has no intention of negotiating a handover of power. This month the rebel National Coalition announced that it would be going to Geneva to talk about a political settlement, but that there could be no role for Assad and his people in the transitional period.

Given that Damascus is presenting itself as a willing participant in the talks, but also as a sovereign power “with only its people to protect from foreign terrorists”, it is clear that the National Coalition has already been presented with a serious challenge. Long riven by rivalries that threaten its cohesion with virtually every statement that it issues, the Coalition will be under huge pressure to boycott the talks, unless the principle of regime change is on the table. By putting in its acceptance first, Damascus has outmaneuvered the opposition. It doubtless expects that disputes inside the Coalition will mean that any delegation that does go to Geneva in January will lack a full mandate. It will indeed very probably actually be condemned by some elements nominally within the Coalition, who will refuse to abide by any agreement emerging from the talks, in the highly unlikely event that any deal is made.

Damascus will therefore be able to claim, once more, that there is no real opposition to negotiate with. It is a tactic eerily reminiscent of that used by Israel in its divide and rule campaign against the Palestinians. Israel provoked and still nurtures the split between Fatah and Hamas. Thus if peace talks with the Palestinian Authority ever show any sign of progress, the Netanyahu government will be able to claim that the divided Palestinians are not capable of delivering on a deal.

There were reports that both Turkey and Iran had combined to call for a cease-fire. Such an agreement has to be looked at carefully. It seems to indicate a key shifting of ground by both Ankara and Tehran. Turkey’s opposition to the Assad government, its support for the rebels and its housing of refugees have been key in maintaining the battle by the Free Syrian Army to break Assad’s stranglehold on his own people. Iran meanwhile has been feeding fighters, money and weapons to Damascus.

Why has the Iranian regime apparently changed its tune? Will it really be pressing Assad to accept a cease-fire and will the Turks start to hamper the logistical support for the FSA? Where does Moscow with its unwavering support for Assad fit into this apparent change of heart? Is this more smoke and mirrors and have the Turks been suckered into deal that could undermine the rebels, both on the battlefield and at the negotiating table?

Tehran’s re-casting of itself as some sort of honest broker would have to be taken in the context of its wider charm offensive over its nuclear program, and the fawning relationship that its new President Hassan Rowhani has struck up with the Obama White House.

The Iranians know that Obama will do anything to avoid launching military strikes against Assad’s armies. The US failure to deliver on its promise to attack, once chemical weapons had been seen to be used in Syria, was a spectacular display of weakness. Tehran will have reasoned, with some justice, that if Obama lacked the courage to intervene decisively in an open and shut criminal act such as the gassing of hundreds of civilians in a rebel-held Damascus suburb, how much less willing will he be to strike at Iranian nuclear facilities? The case for action against Iran is arguably less clear, thanks to cunning Iranian maneuvering. The “concessions” agreed days ago in Geneva have made the argument for an assault on its nuclear sites even more difficult.

The tragedy is of course that the international wheeling and dealing around Syria is mostly about getting Washington off the hook rather than bringing a decisive end to this horrific conflict. Damascus, Moscow and Tehran have been scoring all the points in this diplomatic game and the United States looks increasingly compromised. And all the while, in Syria itself the bloodshed and the butchery continue.