The incidents in the Middle East and the chaos prevailing in the region do not favor any state. Each country faces many actors and it is not possible to distinctly classify them as allies or enemies. Iran wishes the continuance of the Bashar Assad regime in Syria and the central government in Iraq but it is also in an effort to be close to the president of the Kurdistan Regional Government (KRG) in Iraq, Masoud Barzani, and to not have a controversy with Turkey. Saudis are endeavoring to allocate a space for them and they are also afraid of remaining apart from the U.S. Meanwhile, the U.S. is busy with a new relationship with Iran and forming an alternative route suggestion for Turkey while trying to keep Saudis aside. And Turkey does not have a reliable relationship with either Saudi Arabia or Iran while wishing the restructuring of Syria and Iraq. When inspected more closely, it could be seen that currently there is a competition between Turkey, Iran and Saudi Arabia regarding the Islamic geography of the Middle East.
The Islamic State of Iraq and al-Sham (ISIS) emerged and grew in such an atmosphere. ISIS damaging the others served everyone's purposes. Consequently, all the actors watched while ISIS was assaulting "the others." If it is needed to look for someone in charge of it, it is true that the U.S. certainly has the lion's share since there is no other actor that can be more influential to the fates of Syria and Iraq. The Russia-Iran relationship signifies a position that is single-minded but also aware of the fact that their wish would not come true. For this reason, Russia and Iran strive for total insolubility and chaos and try to make relations even more intricate with some tactical moves.
However, the U.S. has the ability to gather all the other actors around a mutual strategy, but it has a quite interesting dilemma. In its macro plan, it struggles against the Russia-Iran line but also wants the protection of short-term stability in the countries since it tries to avoid any physical intervention in the region as far as possible. This target underlines the preservation of the integrities of Syria and Iraq and consenting to the possible administrations. But this has a quite unusual outcome because of the central governments in both countries. So, each short-term move by the U.S. can result in an unwanted outcome in the long run.
Thus the U.S. sustains and supports the Russia-Iran-Iraq-Syria line with its own hands. It has four actors that could side with it - Egypt, Turkey, Saudi Arabia and Kurds. However, it is extremely difficult to create a line from these four countries. Supporting the coup in Egypt is in the same logical category with supporting Assad in Syria in terms of the domestic policies in the country. And such a move is equivalent to pushing Turkey away. Also, the temporary support the U.S. provided to the Democratic Union Party (PYD) is widening the distance with Turkey since this support was not provided as part of a specific mutual strategy. Meanwhile, Turkey is improving its cooperation with Kurds and supporting moderate Islamic movements. However, Saudi Arabia does not favor moderate Islam. If balances do not change, only Egypt and Saudi Arabia will remain on the side of the U.S.
The inevitable wearing down process of the central governments in Syria and Iraq is ongoing and their collapse is predestined. Until their collapse, the U.S. will have strengthened its opposite side with its own hand, will have two partners that are not influential in Middle Eastern communities and make the Turkey-Iraqi Kurdistan line - the only stable line within the region - unusable. Turkey and Barzani will of course continue to be a part of the Western bloc and to support them sincerely. But they will probably have some questions in relying on the attitude of the U.S. It does not require further analysis to predict that if ISIS is eradicated, another terrorist organization will replace it in such an atmosphere.