This was an interesting take on the whole thing, and I think it's quite plausible. He basically argues that the west might be intentionally drawn into a trap in Syria. Incidentally, there is a RAND paper that warns against this exact scenario. It basically argues that putting Syria under stress is beneficial to the US, but there is a risk of over commitment.

Russia and Iran aren't stupid, and they likely saw that the west was going to flare up the conflict in Syria again. One option was to pour resources into Syria to fight off the jihadists. This would be long and protracted quagmire. The other options was simply to withdraw and let them take it. These groups all hate each other, and they're not a cohesive fighting force. They're already starting to fight each other just days after taking over, and it's only going to get worse.

The west wants to have a compliant regime in Syria and that requires using coercive methods that will inevitably breed resentment from these groups. This is basically what happened in both Iraq and Afghanistan where the insurgents ultimately turned on their masters.

On top of all that, Israel is now invading Syria in a big way, and they're unlikely to withdraw. It's only a matter of time till they start getting attacked, and this will force the west to keep pouring resources to prop them up. In effect, this flips the script on Syria. Instead of Russia and Iran being on the hook propping it up while the west can keep destabilizing it relatively cheaply. It is now the west that's stuck with a very volatile situation.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JVMfckVQ7Hg