The Syrian regime is not explicitly religious or sectarian, just as Saddam's wasn't.
However, as with Saddam's regime, most political power is held by members of a minority group. In Iraq these were the Sunnis.
In Syria they are the Alawites, a Shi'ite group that believes Ali was actually an incarnation of God. Given the general Muslim belief that God never was incarnated and that Mohammed was the last prophet it is not surprising that other Muslims consider them heretics.
Agree. The Syrian regime is Alawite/Shiite/Baathist.
"Religiously" they are Alawites, a type of Shiite not recognized by many Muslims. Since Shiites are not recognized by Sunni majority, it follows that Alawites are the minority of the minority (pardon my grammar).
"Politically" they are Baathists (a political party). Baathists are generally very secular. Baathist members can be from various religions: Shiite, Sunni, and even Christian.
In 1982, Hafez Al-Assad sent his troops to Hama, a town in Syria to quell an uprising by Sunni Muslim Brohterhood extremists. He killed between 10,000 and 20,000. As such, he killed radical Muslims because they were a threat to his secular and "relatively" moderate regime.
Some may disagree with this next statement: "Alawite-Baathists are much less radical than al-Qaeda or Iran's mullahs." Believe me: I hate what Assad and his son (current president of Syria) are or what they stand for or what they had done to Lebanon... but in the big scheme of things, they are less radical than the others. The USA needs to face Iran and Al-Qaeda because nothing will appease those two jerks short of the destruction of the USA. Syria, on the other hand, can co-exist with the USA if they get what they want behind the scenes (a return of the Golan Heights).