First from a "lurker" familiar with the region:
The West is reading more than a local might into the current conflict in Tripoli. The bottom line is that perhaps too much of what is happening in Lebanon is being seen from the viewpoint of a western based position that sees Assad as bad, and the rebels (any rebels) as good. Labelling them this way may help to make it come true. But it does not mean that it is true in the first place.

Syria is still heading toward a Lebanese style civil war. This will not be to the benefit of “western” security.
Secondly Professor Paul Rogers writes an overview, which ends on an optimistic note re the new UN Mission:
For the moment, however, rhetoric still holds sway. A particularly bad example is the demand from western sources that the experienced Algerian diplomat Lakhdar Brahimi - the successor of Kofi Annan as United Nations-Arab League envoy in Syria - should agree that the regime gives up power. Brahimi, whose willingness to assume the task of mediation is one of the very few hopeful recent indicators, is far too able to accede to a course that would stymie his mission before it starts.

If Brahimi can engineer a provisional settlement, in the process building on private concerns in Washington and other capitals, that would create some hope of a genuine halt to Syria's descent. The best prospect now is a least-worse option, and even that could only be achieved against great odds. Without it, there is a real risk that the war in Syria could last years rather than months.
He makes a point on Syria's chemical weapons:
Syria decided on developing a chemical-weapon arsenal to counter Israel's unique nuclear capability, a choice reinforced in the wake of Israel's destruction of so many Syrian aircraft in Lebanon in the mid-1980s. The Syrian chemical force is thus configured with Israel in mind, but that does not diminish its potential for other uses if the Assad regime seems about to disintegrate.
Link:http://www.opendemocracy.net/paul-ro...-and-diplomacy