It has long been the policy of the US in the region (since end of WWII) to undermine strong nationalist governments, especially when they are secular and in any way "leftist" (i.e. won't bend over and accept terms dictated by Global Capital). Robert Dreyfuss described this well in his history of US involvement in the region, Devil's Game. No one should make any claim to knowing anything about the US in the ME if they have not read this book - or an equivalent history of the US in the region.

Doug Henwood did an interview today of Gareth Porter in Behind the News (at KPFA in SF). Porter explains the historical stages of the Syrian conflict in a useful and enlightening way - though in less detail than I would have liked. I assume he has something coming out about this in (long) article or series form, but I haven't looked for it yet. It appears from his narrative that the US was drug into this conflict because of the opportunistic intervention of Saudi, Qatar, and Turkey in the wake of the Arab Spring uprisings (brutally crushed by Assad, in spite of his liberalizing tendencies). Of course, the Saudis, Qatar, and Turkey funneled support directly to the radical Islamists (mainly al Qaeda), with the result that the Assad government found itself in really deep shite. This in turn caused Iran to appeal to Russia for help, and Russia obliged. The US was forced to enter, unwillingly, Porter argues, to maintain strong ties to the aforementioned Trio - all of whom play host to American military power in the region.