After an allied strike on Syria, Assad’s war machine shows no sign of stopping. But is that necessarily the worst thing that could happen in the Middle East; As we’ve seen with other places in the Middle East, things get really messed up when people mess with governments.
Iraq for an example is pretty much in shambles, with U.S forces having to retake the city Fallujah (One of the bloodiest battles in the Iraq war), It’s clear that things are pretty unstable in the Middle East. Taking this into account, is letting a somewhat tyrannical government rule over an area for the sake of stability rational? Would a forced democracy be reasonable in the Middle east? These are a few of the questions that are dividing politics on a global scale.
Looking into the first question would probably the most rational response to the situation in the Middle East, so long as Assad stops gassing his people. But having a common enemy with Assad (that enemy being ISIS), could give the Allied forces an advantage in the Middle East. With the elimination of ISIS and help from native Arabic forces, We could see the return of refugees from Europe back to their native homelands, where they belong. We could see a safer Middle East and potentially a safer Africa, and with the removal of non ethnic Europeans, Western Europe in turn would also become safer.
The second question from the second paragraph would unfortunately be the least ration response, taking into account the attempted democracies that have been put into the Middle East. With a low rate of success overall with Middle Eastern democracies, this probably wouldn’t be a very good idea.
As for now there really isn’t a clear path to the end of the conflict in Syria, because all of the different countries and groups fighting have varying opinions and outlooks on the situation.