Washington leads with militarized responses
 

"In 2013, according to the State Department, 'AQAP and AQAP-affiliated groups carried out hundreds of attacks throughout Yemen, including suicide bombings, car bombings, ambushes, kidnappings, and targeted assassinations by gunmen riding motorcycles.'

"The situation has hardly improved throughout 2014. AQAP has openly challenged the state for control of the eastern province of Hadramout even as the US has continued counterterrorism operations."

Gordon Adams writes in Foreign Policy:

"...the danger the president's policy faces is not a result of the contrast between his subtle approach to U.S. leadership (read: "stabilizer of the global system") and W.'s more blunt approach.

"The danger is in assuming that the policy being undertaken is, in fact, stabilizing.  Stability can be bought, for a time, but often at the cost of a systematic, widespread disintegration of that order. 

"And yet here we go again, dragging ourselves into yet another war in the region, pulling reluctant allies behind us, arguing for order and stability -- but unleashing our military might."

Secretary Kerry has cobbled together a coalition of nations to oppose ISIS.  Iran is notably not included.  At this point when Iran is the object of a sanctions regime orchestrated by Western powers it will refuse to 'join' a coalition clearly dominated by the U.S.  Anne Gearan writing in the Washington Post gives another reason Iran is not part of the coalition:

"If Shiite power broker Iran were present, Sunni power broker Saudi Arabia would bolt."

However, the U.S. will make a big mistake if does not vigorously engage Iran behind the scenes -- giving due regard to its interests in Iraq and Syria.

President Bush handed Iran a great geo-strategic gift by invading Iraq and transforming this Sunni-dominated enemy of Iran into an Iran-friendly Shia-dominated state.  If Iraq is to at least remain semi-whole going forward, the U.S. will need to do what it can to induce and encourage the cooperation of Iran in pushing the Iraqi government toward real inclusion of Sunni parties and interests.  

There are two other things that the U.S. needs from Iran: cooperation in negotiating a settlement of the civil war in Syria and participation in healing the 'Sunni-Shia split' which fuels the ideological power of groups like ISIS.  

These steps toward recovery in Iraq and diminishing the influence of ISIS in the region will also have to involve change in Saudi behavior.  All too often the Saudis act as 'reckless driver' allies in the Middle East manipulating U.S. diplomacy into unproductive positions.


Budget Effects

Proponents of increasing the DoD budget have been busy 'making hay' from the ISIS and Putin threats.  The National Security Network has a good summary of why new military activities in the Middle East do not require additional defense spending:

"The President’s campaign against the Islamic State has revived debate over the Budget Control Act (BCA) caps on Department of Defense spending. Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) said last Friday, 'If we don’t replace the cuts in sequestration, we’re going to compromise our ability to be successful against [the Islamic State] and other emerging threats,' and Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) shared similar views, saying, 'I know that if we don’t, we will cripple the United States’ ability to defend this nation.… That isn’t my view — that’s [the view] of every military leader I know.'

"However, while some lawmakers see the fight against the Islamic State as a rallying point to raise the BCA caps, budget experts such as Todd Harrison, a defense budget analyst at the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments, point out, 'The reality is they don’t need to modify the budget caps to do this… The budget caps don’t actually constrain what we’re talking about doing in Iraq and Syria' -- because those operations are paid for by Overseas Contingency Operations funding (OCO), which is not subject to BCA caps.

"Moreover, the costs of operations thus far against the Islamic State have been minimal, only '$7.5 million per day since June 16,' reports Inside Defense – a sliver of the total nearly $60 billion dollar OCO request submitted by the Pentagon for FY2015. Col. Steve Warren, a Pentagon spokesman adds, 'We believe that we can meet all our current requirements right now with FY-14 [overseas contingency operations funding].'"