That post highlights a few of the geopolitical agendas that are tied up in the ultimate result of the conflict, but I don't think it identifies a clear reason for the US to strike.
It mentions that it is in America's and Israel's geopolitical interest for Assad's regime to fall because they are allied with Iran and Russia. This is true. Unfortunately for the US, the opposition is not a clearly preferable option to Assad. There is no predicting what elements will seize power post-Assad, and as far as Israel is concerned they've had relative peace with Syria for quite some time now and would be foolish to gamble on a revolution providing a more favorable situation for them.
As far as the Sunni/Shia divide, you could have just as well suggested that the sectarian civil war along those ancient battle lines that followed the 2003 Iraq invasion could have spread to the broader middle east. It seems that whenever instability breaks out in part of the mid-east, the sectarian divisions leftover from before the time when the west partitioned these 'countries' boils to the surface. I don't see the conflict in Syria sparking a region-wide sectarian war, but that's just me.
So ultimately, I think while Assad is far from ideal, Washington is ultimately not willing to risk it on the rebels. This is the debate they have been having for the entire duration of the conflict. Of course they'd love to see Assad fall, but how can they be sure any support they lend doesn't lead to the rise of a regime that is even more hostile to the US?
This is why Obama is only talking about strategic strikes and not 'regime change.' He knows very well that a few strikes won't collapse the regime. That isn't the intent, and thus any strategic goals that depend on the regime falling are ultimately not being pursued here.
|