From the start of this situation, Assad has been one of the local strongmen who used what was necessary to keep tribal and other factional interests in their place in most any Middle Eastern Country since the British Partition.
{That partition ignored tribal boundaries, quite possibly for the purpose of keeping any one group from becoming prominent in the region, and lumped them into nations willy-nilly. The Kurds, for instance got split up four ways.)
When the US Department of State engaged with insurgents (something most likely, considering Benghazi) for the purpose of destabilizing governments to change the focus of power in the region (N. Africa and the Middle East) Syria was the other end of the group of countries the MB was targeting. The full group would have left all but Israel in MB and or IS hands from Tunisia to the Bosporus--half the Mediterranean shoreline--a strategic coup, and significant advance toward the Caliphate.
Egypt opted out by having a military coup to oust Morsi.
We had no business in what amounted to an uprising in Syria, and only had an excuse to become involved when Obama's policy in Iraq permitted the rise of IS there.
Now, when the ploy to have the US intervene against Assad failed, IS provided another excuse to be present in Syrian airspace, now in conflict with Russians who have come in to secure oil shipment routes and stabilize Assad's regime.
Add in Turkey (NATO member, US ally) and the cross border airspace violations which inevitably will occur in warfare, assertions of sovereignty, armed conflict, and it starts to get complicated.
Will the US be drawn in (and the rest of NATO) against Russia?
I don't think either side wants that, but who would benefit?
The Islamists who have provoked the entire mess, from the MB to IS to the one calling the shots on this side of the pond.
Duh-1 isn't playing checkers, he's playing chess, just not for our team.
If the Russians and NATO can be manipulated into a conflict, the eventual power vacuum left will be filled by invading Islamists, first in Europe, and then making power plays here and in the underbelly of Russia.
A more Western oriented POTUS would recognize this, and would likely coordinate with the Russians and sort it out so everyone would be content with the arrangement, because that would be in our mutual best interest.
The man who said he would 'side with Islam' may not see that the same way.
additionally, there is a significant profit to be made off of oil stolen from Iraq and shipped through Turkey by IS, and this may well be clouding judgement in the region as well.
If that oil (I have read estimates as high as 1 million BOPD, but considering the trucks available to move it more likely 100,000 barrels of oil per day) came off the market, Russia and other oil producers would benefit by the increased revenue, both in gross sales and in increased price.
IS would lose a serious revenue stream, as would all the middlemen dealing in the sale of that oil. Otherwise, conflict in the region heralds geopolitical instability which causes speculation price hikes in the oil markets as well. That benefits all producers, including Saudi Arabia, Russia, and the US.
All out warfare between Russia and the US/NATO would only benefit the Islamists, including IS and backers lurking within countries in the region.
Hopefully, this ploy to involve the mostly Christian powers in mutual destruction will fail.
Yes....initially they would see it that way, but if they move too early they will draw back a severed limb.
These islamist insurgents do not generally go into a well defended battle zone. They would side on the sidelines waiting for it to end and then look for weakness.
Post 66, fantastic analysis