I’d say Wahabbism is a direct consequence of the US support for the Arab Monarchies. Wahabbism can only be attacked by staunchly opposing Monarchism which exists on the Arabian peninsula. They needed a way to undermine the Arabic republican movement from Nasser, the Baathists, and Ghadaffi, and so salafi Islamism was the method of doing so.

The US also liked to used the concern of minority populations (particularly the kurds) as a cudgel against the Arab Republics. Therefore addressing their concerns while eliminating petty bourgeois and bourgeois elements of those movements would need to be addressed.

Frankly I think a more regional anti-colonial nationalism is better suited to deal with the contradictions of West Asia and North Africa. Although a form of Pan-Arab solidarity should exist, I think Arab nationalism is dead in the water due to its own contradictions.

In the Levant for example, the primary issue is the splintered territory of what should be a contiguous diverse nation. For Egypt, it would be to create stronger links with the African continent it’s based in, and throw out peninsular influence. For the peninsula, it would the overthrow of their monarchies.

Circling back to Syria, their needs to be an understanding that any force connected NATO ally or Peninsular power can’t be trusted to Constructing a stable state. It should also be known that Israel’s attempts to balkanize are not going to provide minority rights for those new ethnostates, as they shall not have any capacity to express sovereignty.