Sub-Optimal Situation in Syria

The conflict in Syria has devolved into a brutal civil war with no end in sight. International organizations like the Arab League and the United Nations have attempted to step in and negotiate some sort of peace, with no success. Both the Assad regime and the Rebels are so entrenched in their positions that it seems they would rather go on slaughtering eachother indefinitely in search of total victory than negotiate a compromising middle ground. This piece in the LA Times argues that international organizations and mediators would be wise to promote a "third path" somwhere between the stances of Assad and the Rebels, as it would be best for the whole of Syria and could stop the bloodshed. American University professor, Robert Pastor, lays it out plainly:

"They [Syrian Rebels] are fighting hard because they fear that defeat will mean their annihilation. Moreover, the regime fears that compromise could be construed as weakness. With the two sides balanced and resisting serious negotiations, the conflict won't be over soon."

I would argue that we are seeing something of a prisoner's dilemma--the Assad regime is set on a dominant strategy of total victory in order to regain legitimacy and total power, while the rebels believe they must fight for total victory as well because if they lose they will be executed anyway. The rational solution would be for the two to come together--preferably without the intrusion of third parties, though unlikely--and craft some middle ground that is in the best interest for all of the people of Syria. This could mean that Assad may have to step down or scale back his control,  that the Rebels may not get all the freedoms they are after, and maybe that international groups would have to step out of the issue--but in the end a long term optimal solution could be reached if both parties work together in some capacity to come to a peaceful compromise. If this prisoner's dilemma continues, the costs of victory continue to increase as more resources are needed and more people are killed on both sides, reducing the benefit of total victory.