Instead of thinking that all it will take to bring governments who disagrees with you in line or to get them to the negotiating table is to formulate a coup to overthrow said government or to beat them into submission militarily, I'm saying you use all other resources at your disposal first short of full scale war. Now, if you think that's being ideological so be it. I see that as just using common sense.
Again, even former President Reagan was willing to negotiate with governments he didn't necessarily agree with. And he only exercised military strength once.
"A fair exchange ain't no robbery." Tupac Shakur w/Digital Underground
We have been told that Obama had the British PM lobby senators to vote against sanctions during his recent visit. One can only wonder why the President would be so irate that the Israeli PM also lobby, but for rather than against sanctions. Could it be that the President does not want the U.S. to really get a sense of what Obama is willing to give Iran to get a treaty? Not that this president has ever lied to the American public.
The president asks that no sanctions be voted on while negotiations are ongoing. A guess a question would be when are they expected to end. There has already been two 6 month extensions. Does anyone still believe anything this imperial president says.
I'm going to break this down a little because you have several separate points that need to be addressed on their own.
See I don't think we are...At least not in the way we need to be doing it...Our military leaders have far too often been at odds at the policies in place by this administration in terms of not only application, but intelligence...We're using special forces to provide ground surveillance, coordinate air strikes and train foreign combatants how to "take the fight to a common enemy".
Really? Our "soft power" these days is all but non existent...We are being played in nearly all theaters in the world today...Obama's word means nothing, and players like Russia, NK, China, and in the ME know it. Ukraine is a prime example...We're using our political and economic influence (soft power) in an attempt to force rouge countries (Russia, North Korea, Iran) into compliance moreso with UN/NATO resolutions/treaties.
See, that's the thing...ISIS isn't just some regional annoyance. They are a force that is in total disregard of the borders, and treaties set up almost a hundred years ago that established the countries that are in place now...They want to go back to the traditional settings of that region, and do not recognize the structure of the ME as it is today...As such they want their own country, and are slaughtering those in their way to achieve it...Political persuasion to bring Arab nations to the table to "collective" resolve this regional problem called ISIS.
It's not inconsistent...Obama is an anti Colonialist, he in many ways like ISIS, or like AQ sees that their claim of false borders, false constructs in the ME sees that, and agrees with that, so he sees these people not as enemies, but "freedom fighters" of a sort, and sympathizes with them. Problem is, that they know that at most when he came in, that he only had 8 years, and in the beginning used that to buy time til now, and now he is on his way out so they could care less about him, or what he has to say. And they have used the incoherence you speak of as a way to pull off the old slight of hand trick...Iran is doing that right now as we speak...While I would agree that the Obama Administrations foreign policy agenda where the Middle East is concerned does seem to be inconsistent if not incoherent to some...
Americans are so enamored of equality that they would rather be equal in slavery than unequal in freedom.
Alexis de Tocqueville