I think if there was an Arab Spring in the alternate timeline without the Iraq War, Iraq would have been much more susceptible to it than Syria was, primarily because it was surrounded on all borders by countries hungry for the pieces. I think you're wrong vis-a-vis divisions in Syria, by the way. During the start of the civil war and for a long time before that I think Syrian politics has been unified Sunni, Christian, and Kurdish resentment against a ruling Alawite elite. There is no doubt in my mind that, before a third of the population fled or died, an overthrow of Assad by the Free Syrian Army would have resulted in a democratic government.
But in any case I don't necessarily subscribe to ousting Assad. What I want is for there to have been no arms going into Syria at all (from Russia or the US or Turkey), I would have wanted there to have been a no-fly zone (and I still haven't responded to your Susan Rice quote yet).
And I'm not advocating for anything in Syria. It's too late to do anything. The country is gone. The debate over it now is like how to stop the house from burning down even though the kids and the dog are dead. Best you can do is give Iraq some bits in the East, let Kurdistan take the parts in the North, hope Saudi Arabia stops sending radical jihadists there, etc.
I'd keep in mind the Arab Spring was not at its core really about a hunger for democracy, so much as a rebellion against food prices,
largely coming from commodity speculation that drove up the cost of grains and essential food 2. Though certainly that is merely the spark and agendas got placed on top of that. In that context though, its hard to say. Iraq was already under heavy pressure due to sanctions, would the run on commodities been a tipping point for an already beaten down populace or a drop in the bucket? In the known timeline, Iraq certainly succumbed to pressures of the Arab Spring. But that is the problem with these sort of speculative things. It doesn't end, and its pretty much impossible to find agreement when you start engaging in alternative future discussions.
On Syria, I just think the solutions you are talking about(no arms into Syria) is/was incredibly escalatory. How do you respond if Russia breaks that embargo? Which they almost certainly would, and I am not an international law expert, but I am not sure America would have the standing to deny those sales? In terms of now, the thing is Turkey isn't going to let the Kurds take Turkish land. Assad and Russia aren't going to allow a loss of their borders to Iraq, and without consent, that certainly wouldn't be legal under international law anyways. Not trying to be argumentative, but just pointing out why I think this, like before, is really a problem with only a bunch of high risk, problematic solutions.
