Syrian Foreign Ministry officials said they are interested in holding talks with UN Special Envoy Lakhdar Brahimi regarding his proposed Eid al-Adha ceasefire, but said they were concerned other nations wouldn’t make the effort to convince the various rebel factions involved in the ongoing civil war to reciprocate.
Brahimi’s plan is for a temporary ceasefire for the multi-day Muslim holiday, in the hope that the brief pause in fighting might conceivably convince both sides that negotiations are worth exploring, a lofty goal at a time when neither has shown much interest in talks.
So far the closest to a rebel response that has been made is from an official in the Syrian National Council (SNC), a rebel political group, which said they figured that the Free Syrian Army (FSA) was liable to abide by a ceasefire if the Syrian military unilaterally stopped firing first.
The FSA hasn’t confirmed this possibility, but it seems unlikely that the Islamist factions in the rebel movement would listen to either the FSA or the SNC on the matter, so putting a deal together remains an uphill battle for Brahimi.
It is hard to believe that Syria will bargain away any of its core interests. One such interest appears to be its national sovereignty, which means protecting its territory and political rights against foreign intervention or coercion. Another its economic survival, and the pipeline deal it has signed with Iran and Iraq that would break the US, Saudi/GCC and Turkish energy hub monopoly and guarantee its economic future. A third is its constitutional reform process which it originally sought to complete in 2014 and has insisted on completing. A fourth is its relationship with Russia- and to a lesser extent China- including Russia's interest in maintaining its naval presence at Tartus and access to trade and investment opportunities (e.g. potential development of Syria's (and possibly Greece's) offshore natural gas reserves) in the Eastern Mediterranean.
With the lack of unity among the rebels, and an almost certain unwillingness by many if not all of the rebel groups to set down their arms, it is hard to see how the different factions will sit down and negotiate without first being so weakened militarily that they will be forced to do so, and right now one doesn't see forceful action by the West to withdraw aid, let alone disarm the rebels, or any ability by it to encourage rebel unity.
One's sense is that Turkey will not invade without NATO air support and/or troops and intervention by the Israelis (whom they distrust), and that Israel, like the Soviets with Japan at the end of WWII, will wait until Syria is close to destruction before entering and, like a vulture, annex the Golan Heights and seize whatever else it wants. In the meantime, the Syrian Army, although exhausted, will continue to pound the rebels, and eventually prevail, unless the West decides to intervene militarily on a large scale, which could in the long run be self-defeating.
A more rational (and face-saving) answer would be for the U.S. to put a stop the hostilities in Syria (something very hard to achieve with what it has unleashed), respect Syria's sovereignty, but insist on free, open and internationally monitored elections after Syria completes its constitutional reforms, declare the Iran sanctions successful and begin to deal with that country in a sensible way so that a regional accommodation and security agreement between the Saudis/GCC and the Iran/Iraq/Syria axes can be assured, and finally put serious effort to solving the Israeli-Palestinian and Jerusalem problem which has been an important cause so much of these wars in the Middle East- and that probably means pushing for leadership change in Israel, and/or reading the riot act to the Israelis and taking political heat for it.
The American people are impatient for results. They will accept theft if it is successful and it can be "legitimized" – that is implicit in American history- but one believes they would prefer a successful solution that is just, and that could be achieved with: a rational and fair policy, a strong and unwavering leadership stance, support from the media, and direct communication with the American people to educate them about the real issues. This is something Romney and his team can't do, because they are ignorant, biased, and unwilling to accept the facts on the ground. Yet, it is something Obama could do if he were to have the humility to reverse course, courage to take the political heat, and a willingness to face and take on the "unspeakable" forces that would try to do him in for trying.