IMO, the U.S. would do well to consolidate its security commitments and collaboration with Egypt, Israel, and Jordan. Remarkably, even as it has a fresh opportunity for a viable Egyptian partner, its policy approach is largely indifferent to the new government and wholly inadequate. It continues to press Israel when, in fact, Israel has demonstrated far more flexibility than the Palestinians. When the Palestinians finally agree that Palestinian refugees and their descendants have a right to settle in the historic land but specifically the new Palestinian state and not Israel, then progress on that front might be feasible. So long as they insist on a "right of return," a final settlement won't be feasible. That's the big barrier to peace, not a lack of unilateral Israeli concessions.
Finally, I believe the U.S. should be a little less idealistic and naive when it comes to sectarian uprisings. Time and again, it has believed that uprisings in Libya, Syria, etc., were democratic in nature. They were not. Syria's initial protests may have been. Those who took up arms had only sectarian ambitions. In neither state did they lay out goals that were compatible with U.S. regional interests and that omission speaks for itself. Not even the most "moderate" of the Syrian revolutionaries--and the quotes are deliberate--even signaled privately or publicly that they would establish any kind of partnership with the U.S., cooperate on combating terrorist movements hostile to U.S. interests and allies, or conclude peace with Israel. How Syria resolves its internal affairs is and should be its issue. None of the parties to the sectarian conflict rise to the level that would justify U.S. support. All have demonstrated excesses in brutality to the extent that their capabilities allow. The U.S. issue should concern working to ensure that no matter the outcome, American regional interests and allies won't be worse off.