The Syrian bloodbath is getting murkier with every passing day and new ground realities are popping up unexpectedly. The latest fighting between the al-Qaeda linked Islamic State in Iraq, Syrian rebels and Western-backed Free Syrian Army in the town of Azaz near the Turkish border, has only increased the possibility of a war within war while the country is creeping towards an explosive and unending deadly civil conflict which may very well suck everyone into its blind fighting.

The hard-earned deal between America and Russia to handle the regime's chemical weapons provided a window of opportunity for the peaceful settlement of several controversial-yet-key issues in the conflict. Yet fresh tensions are now replacing older ones, with acrimony over a possible new UN resolution -- to allow the use of force under certain circumstances -- deepening the divisions among key stakeholders.

The Syrian issue is muddled due to assorted, cross-cutting rivalries. There is the direct fighting between Assad's government and the rebels struggling to topple the sitting president. Both government and fighters are no monolithic entities, and the intra-group tussle is no longer a secret. President Assad is grasping onto power, tethered to a delicate end. His several loyal followers have already defected and there are problems with many others.

Deputy Prime Minister Qadri Jamil, whose People's Will Party is part of the government, had to clarify his statement that the country had reached a stalemate where no one was powerful enough to win the war. In his earlier interview with British newspaper The Guardian, the politician had talked about "no quick resort to war," as well as the possibility of a ceasefire during the talks held at Geneva. The interview, by default or design, showed that Assad was becoming weaker and his once powerful army was no match for the ragtag fighters; nevertheless, Jamil's party issued a rebuttal, saying he was quoted out of context.