OK, so the civil war in Syria has spilled over into Iraq, where the "What is the Arabic Word for Teabagger" militants from ISIS have been going through the Iraqi army like a hot knife through butter.
Let's try to get back to origins though.
Why did the protests in Syria lead to a civil war, and the overthrow of regimes in Tunisia, Libya (OK, that one was our bombs), and Egypt (which is now a clusterfuck where the various Persian Gulf kingdoms are taking different sided), but not Bahrain?
The answer is that the princes of the Gulf States, particularly the Saudis, decided that the "Arab Spring" was a good time to go after secular Arab regimes, while they needed to support a fellow potentate in Bahrain, to the point of engaging in an occupation of that Island nation (with the active support of its King).
It's simple, really, the Kings/Emirs of Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, the UAE, etc. know that if a secular Arabist regime ever comes into existence, it's game over for them, because their subjects will now longer tolerate the dysfunction and excesses of their own dynasties.
This is why the Saudis are aggressively supporting the most militantly Islamist of the Syrian rebels. (Well, there is also the reason that the head of Saudi Intelligence, Prince Bandar, is simply a dick)
Maybe I'm being a bit of a political Little Orphan Annie here, but it seems to me that the actions of the Saudis, and to a lesser degree the President Erdoğan of Turkey, have served to do little but to foment religious strife (Say what you will about the Assads, but at least they hate everyone equally), by creating a radicalized and militarized population of extremists.
Maybe Kerry should be doing some stuff behind the scenes to get Turkey and Saudi Arabia to stop funding their private little war in Syria. (Maybe Kerry already is, but I've not read a leak about it to Bob Woodward yet, so I'm betting no)