Story of developments here. In this light we should wonder whether the best option from the Western perspective might be for Syria to in fact break apart, with an Assad controlled state from Damascus to the North, and a Sunni state further to the east. There’s a few advantages from the Western perspective.
1. It might be a relatively quick way to end the current bloodshed.
2. The Sunni state, being a weak state ensconced between Alawite Al-Assad Syria and Iraq, might be a lot more amenable to Western support and policy preferences than if it came to power triumphantly in a successful revolution. Similarly, the presence of an external threat might prevent civil war.
3. The Al-Assad state, , being located between Turkey and Sunni Syria, would need constant support from Iran, preoccupying them with a potentially grinding problem. (On the other hand, the creation of a second Iranian satellite above Lebanon may also not be an appealing prospect.)
4. For Israel in particular, the advantages might be significant. Syria as a foe would be fragmented and amenable to Israeli policies of divide and conquer. What is more, pressure to abandon the Golan might diminish dramatically. Who to return it to? The population of the Golan on both sides of the border is actually Druze, not Sunni, who have a history of being pro-Assad. But given the existence of a ‘good’, pro-Western Sunni Syria, clearly there would be no pressure on Israel to return the Golan to the ‘bad’ Syria.