No. If anything this is bad, very bad.

The main thing America and the west want from the middle east, is for the middle east to be stable. That way we can buy their oil and sell them shit. It's why we ignore shitholes like UAE and Quatar, because they are at the very least 'Stable' shitholes.

The current ISIS situation was basically a huge misplay on the wests part: They started providing weapons to various rebel groups, but then backed out of actually finishing the job half way through. This caused a power stalemate between the two sides, and allowed extremism to flourish (As it always does in warzones).

I'm not even sure myself what the long-standing policy is supposed to be for the Middle East. I understand why Halliburton would benefit from the invasion of Iraq, which so far has allowed them to control the majority of the oil there. But with Syria I would say that the policy was always to watch them fall apart, considering Obama went to Congress to ask the American people if they wanted to invade.

Honestly, I can't see how the U.S. benefits from both countries destabilizing other than the continued excuse of the War on Terror. Assad is supported by Russia and isn't being ousted any time soon, and if the Iraq War as proved anything it is that removing dictators without plans in place is foolish. However, the long-standing policy might be to contain the Middle East forever, so destabilizing countries makes sense in that regard.