It is a good thing that the parties in the Syrian civil war are talking. But expectations were low even before Geneva II started. Iran, a key player in the drama, was invited and within 24 hours it was uninvited under pressure from Syrian rebels and Washington. And the more powerful rebels refused to participate. Only the Syrian National Coalition (SNC) bothered to attend. It still styles itself a "government in exile" even though it has little to no support among the Syrian rebels.

The absence of Iran and the more powerful Islamist opposition makes substantial progress difficult.

And the United States wants to dictate the terms as demonstrated by Secretary of State John Kerry's opening salvo: he told delegates at the talks that they have only "one option" to consider, and that is the creation of a new government, and one that cannot allow Bashar al Assad's involvement in any way.

But that is unrealistic to say the least. The United States holds a weak hand, as Assad is winning on the battlefield. He holds all major cities except one, Raqaa, the only city that is still in the hands of the rebels. Assad told AFP he saw no reason why he would not run in the presidential election this year. Western media keep saying that Geneva I excluded Bashar. That is not true. The Communiqué only calls for a negotiated transition, but nowhere does it state that such a transition cannot include Assad.

The United States and its allies want Assad out because he is a staunch ally of Iran and Russia. But would they prefer Assad to be replaced by Islamists extremists, who are by far the most powerful and best organized fighters among the rebels? The options are so stark that some (e.g. Justin Raimondo) even suggested the possibility of Washington switching sides, at least temporarily to support Assad's inclusion in a transitional government against al Qaeda. That is quite unlikely, but Raimondo is not alone, many U.S. officials have also said that an Assad victory would be better than al-Qaeda-linked rebels grabbing hold the reins of state.

It stands to reason that the fate of Assad should be decided by the Syrian people, not by outsiders.

The rebels are fighting among themselves, with the Islamic Front pitched against al Qaeda. But Ahrar al Sham, the most powerful militia within the Islamic Front, recently declared itself to be the real representative of al-Qaeda in Syria, as opposed to the other al-Qaeda factions that the Islamic Front had been fighting.

So the U.S. backed Islamic Front is not "moderate" at all as the Western media continue to characterize it.

Syria is the site of a proxy war. Saudi Arabia and Qatar are more determined than the United States and Western Europeans to oust Assad. The Saudis and Iran are rivals competing for regional influence. They are also rivals in the religious war between Sunnis and Shiites. Geneva II is lopsided with the Saudis and Qatar attending, but not the Iranians.

The only reason why Geneva II may achieve anything is that several powerful participants in the Syrian war have an interest in bringing it to a conclusion or to make sure that it does not spread further. There is no military solution to the Syrian conflict. The only way out is through political negotiation.

So the talking continues. For the first time the Syrian government and SNC are in the same room, but at different tables, with UN Special Envoy Lakhdar Brahimi ferrying messages back and forth. The talks centered on the possibility of aid corridors for Homs and prisoner exchanges.

A partial cease fire deal may be possible. To work out a power-sharing plan acceptable to all will be much harder.

The author is a columnist with China.org.cn. For more information please visit:http://www.h5a3.com/opinion/zhaojinglun.htm

Opinion articles reflect the views of their authors, not necessarily those of China.org.cn.