The article ain't half bad either, but that's because it has a lot of half-truths in it. Commenter 'kbinwalid' had the best take:

I have one issue with the author and that his his naive way of thinking that western politicians are misinformed. They’re not and they are doing this on purpose. It’s simple cold political reality. Iran is the biggest threat to western influence in the region and the biggest supporters are countries like Saudi Arabia. A country that has literally no respect from Muslims who don’t get paid by them. They know precisely what they are doing and they are doing it on purpose. Their plan is to basically either weaken or divide Syria so that it doesn’t get involved in regional affairs. It doesn’t matter who is doing it as long as the anti-western government is weakened. In Iraq Shias are the largest group and the ones least dependent on the US unlike Kurds and in the eyes of Obama the Sunnis. It was because of the Shia the US had to withdraw and they are pretty happy working with Iran. By constantly talking about Sunni oppression and Shia militias what our governments want to do is basically weaken the country and make sure they have skin in the game. Make it impossible for Iraq to be 100% pro-Iranian. Personally the past five years have disillusioned me to how “good” we are and I hope one day Obama, Clinton, Sarkozy, Cameron and Hollande face trial for their support of sectarian massacres. The rape of thousands of Yazidi girls and the genocide on them is primarily the fault of those who enabled ISIS which is them. I deeply hate them for making me consider the Russians to be the good guys. Only they are interested in working with normal Sunnis and eliminating harshly any extremists. They are cutting the cancer out while we support its growth.