I think your conclusion there was reasoned.
IMO, there is no acceptable resolution to the Syrian problem, considering what it does in it’s own country, and what it does in others. Would the Muslim Brotherhood be any better? I don’t think so. Invigorated, it could easily be much worse.
What I keep coming back to, is the idea that Assad allowed Iran free supply access to Hezbollah. Hezbollah finally grew strong enough to take over Lebanon’s government. And now it constantly storing arms in Southern Lebanon to do proxy work for Iran and Syria. So Assad can’t be seen as some diminished leader who is no longer a threat. He probably is best of Christians. He may even be best for Israel considering the alternative.
On the order of dumb and dumber, this could be seen as worse and worser.
The rebels in Syria are doing one thing, and that’s taking Assad’s attention off Israel for the moment, although I’ve recently seen some signs of Syrian moves in the Golan Heights area.
The U. N. is worthless in the buffer zones. Israel would never be allowed to do what Hezbollah is doing with the U. N.’s help (essentially).
In conclusion as with the start of my post, I don’t see a better outcome right now than what you touched on, Assad in power weak enough but strong enough.
Assad is bad, but the alternative is worse....