As far as I'm aware - although I'm not a specialist on the subject - the demographics of the region indeed leaned far less in favour of a Muslim majority, but I get the impression Muslims were still a plurality. Moreover, the non-Muslim groups were also mutually opposed in a regular basis. (For instance, see the Christian-Druze conflict in Lebanon, which notably flared up to great excesses around 1860.) We also see, for instance, that in 1850, the Muslim majority in Aleppo were quite capable of slaughtering the Christian minority-- and besides able, willing. That last factor is important: as far as I expect, Muslims might just tolerate Alewites in a position of power, but tolerating Christian rule is another matter. (That's not even going into just how lasting or fleeting the Alewite power in Syria might turn out to be. It's a post-Ottoman state of affaire, less than a century old. Historically speaking, that's nothing.)
In short, I think there are options and perspectives, but based on what I know about the relevant matters, I think it's not as easy to get done as you portray it just there. Or rather: it's not as easy to create a stable situation that is not under constant pressure (be it internal or external).