Barack Obama is leading from behind in Syria But the rebels are not as hopeless as is sometimes made out. They inflicted heavy casualties before they withdrew from Qusayr, which was a difficult position to hold. Their strength across the north, including large parts of Aleppo, is such that it would take a long time to grind them down. The regime claimed to have Aleppo surrounded with 20,000 troops all the way back in August - they have only gone backwards since then. Moreover, while it is now hard to see the rebels winning outright, it is also unclear what a regime victory would look like. Such is the strength of the opposition in some parts, particularly the jihadists, that reconquering the territory would simply leave room for an endless insurgency. More weapons could tip the balance back. Military analysts - and the plethora of YouTube videos of rebels in action - suggest a close correlation between heavy weapons reaching their hands and their advances. Early this year, they received a series of shipments from the former Yugoslavia, including anti-tank missiles, and swept through the north-east within three months. There are plenty more such weapons, so officials suggest, already paid for by Gulf countries and sitting in Turkish warehouses, waiting the American go-ahead to be handed over. That leaves the question of how much Syria's political backers, Iran and Russia, are prepared themselves to up the ante. How determined are they for Mr Assad to win out? Much depends on why they have so committed themselves to this fight. It is tempting to think that they also became stuck: condemned across the Middle East for their backing of a murderous dictatorship, they could only be vindicated if this truly became an international conflict. As the behaviour of the jihadist and Sunni sectarian elements of the opposition has worsened, so Russia and Iran can portray Washington as taking sides in an internecine war within the Muslim world. With Mr Assad's Shia allies in the minority, they can even portray themselves as the underdogs. If that is the case, there is still a chance, as Mr Obama hopes, of some sort of peace deal, with the mess and blame being spread around. So slow has Mr Obama been to act, however, that there is a worse danger: that Russia and Iran will be quite happy to see America sink to its neck, humiliated by ever closer association with the jihadists who are supposed to be its sworn enemy. This is the nature of asymmetrical warfare. Could Mr Obama have acted any differently? Perhaps the world was still not ready after the George W. Bush years for America to take the lead in the Middle East. The terrible option can still be better than all the others. But it remains the case that if you consciously lead from behind, as Mr Obama wants to do, you sometimes cannot see where you are going.