Crisis in Syria - Intervention?

For months now, we have been seeing a country destroy itself in a bloody civil war that only a couple of years ago we thought would have been far fetched. The Arab Spring inspired peaceful protests in almost all Arab nations, including Syria. The protests did gain momentum but were not going to do much in terms of removing Syrian President Bashar al Assad from power. Soon, the peaceful protests were hijacked by extremist elements, supported and funded by regional and foreign powers. It's strange to think that America is supporting those it fought against in Iraq and Afghanistan and than even admitting that the rebels include Al-Qaeda elements. So why all the fuss about intervention? Well, if you've even looked at the news for a second, you will know that the situations really bad and the bitter fighting for key regions are not showing any signs of stopping. The Western powers, as in NATO have never been big fans of Assad and vice versa. Syria is also a key ally for regional Shia power Iran and without Syria, Iran would lose influence in Lebanon as reaching Hezbollah will not be very easy. So one of the reasons why NATO would want him out is because it perfectly suits their ambitions in the region and somewhat isolates Iran. The conflict in Syria, even before it was actually a conflict, was being made to look like it was entirely the government's, or as some news channels like to say regime's fault for the killings, making the opposition look like saints. The same coverage was not given to the uprisings in Bahrain and Yemen and even the protests and deaths in Saudi Arabia. The only reason at that time would have been because of the relations between the dictatorships, dubbed nicely by the news channels as 'monarchies' and the nations of NATO. Now, the focus has shifted to chemical weapons, with US president Barack Obama saying that the use of those weapons would be a red line, with UK Prime Minister David Cameron backing him up on this, even though the Syrians have stated numerous times that they will not use these weapons but what seems to be the case is that the US has said that they may be forced to intervene if the chemical weapons are in danger of being captured by the wrong people, which by all accounts means the rebels, whom they are meant to be supporting. We hear of alleged massacres on the news as well and mostly footage of 'alleged regime atrocities' but take a look at this video which alleges to show rebels committing an atrocity- (The following video might be deemed offensive and contains footage some might find distressing.) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VXErD2VDshI Whatever happens, we know all to well that interventions do not go swimmingly, such as those in Afghanistan, Somalia, Iraq and Libya. None of these places are promising democracies and are very high on the failed states list. Sectarian violence has risen, most notably in Iraq and Libya and an intervention in Syria will almost certainly inch it closer to being a failed state.