I would say there has been some involvement, but probably not to the extent originally claimed by some when the conflict started.
At around the time of the Libyan conflict BBC Newsnight interviewed some US State dept guy on the wests involvement in 'encouraging' revolutions and coups, and he was quite candid and said that a fair amount of resource was allocated to training young people from Iran, Libya, Tunisia and Egypt on how to best use social networking media to spread anti regime ideas, and garner support for revolutionary movements. He stated it was always preferable certainly to democrat administrations to bring down undesirable regimes from within, with the support of the people, rather put together a clear military case based on national security concerns back home. It was certainly cheaper. The guest on Newsnight had been from the Bush Whitehouse. There has been no such candor from the Obama camp. I guess because they are now in power, his lot were not.
It's not unreasonable to assume there may have been a similar plan with regard to Syria, but the true and organic revolutionary movements in these countries should not be ignored. The Syrian uprising is different to say Egypt though, with more ruthless opposing factions fighting and foreign terrorist groups involved The attempted 'green revolution' in Iran in 2009 was by all accounts largely US funded and prompted. Of course that was quickly snapped down by the Iranian regime.
Obama's role in all of this is more ambiguous than his predecessors. The plans, in principle to take out these countries may have been suggested by a neo con think tank, prior to Bush being elected, but Obama knows there is little appetite for war on the home front. This is why he bypassed congress, went straight to NATO and the UN over Libya, and allowed Britain and France to appear to be leading the charge. Of course back then he needed to watch his step with a second term to fight for. That said, even now he appears quite reluctant to get involved militarily in Syria.
We're at a point where we're about to start arming these rebel groups, and I've said in the petrodollar thread, this is very dangerous. As soon as this conflict became an actual civil war I was saying that we would end up arming rebels, despite the claims at the time by the US and UK that that would not happen. So, who knows actual involvement on the ground is quite possible although not inevitable.