A: No, not really.

“ISIL poses a threat to the people of Iraq and Syria, and the broader Middle East—including American citizens, personnel, and facilities. If left unchecked, these terrorists could pose a growing threat beyond that region, including to the United States. While we have not yet detected specific plotting against our homeland, ISIL leaders have threatened America and our allies.”

In plain English: The threat is to Syria and Iraq, both Iranian client states. The threat beyond the region is completely hypothetical and rhetorical.

Q: Do we have a plan to defeat ISIS?

A: Again, no, not really.

“We cannot do for Iraqis what they must do for themselves, nor can we take the place of Arab partners in securing their region.”

In plain English: Without competent forces on the ground, U.S. airpower alone won’t decide anything.

Q: If the U.S. isn’t fighting the ground war, does it have capable allies who will?

A: Nope.

“We will also support Iraq’s efforts to stand up National Guard units to help Sunni communities secure their own freedom from ISIL’s control. Across the border, in Syria, we have ramped up our military assistance to the Syrian opposition.”

In plain English: We’re desperately casting about for allies who aren’t Hezbollah or Iranian Revolutionary Guards.

Q: Won’t Iran’s ayatollahs and Syria’s Assad regime end up the real winners?

A: Um, are we on the record?

“[W]e cannot rely on an Assad regime that terrorizes its people—a regime that will never regain the legitimacy it has lost. Instead, we must strengthen the opposition as the best counterweight to extremists like ISIL, while pursuing the political solution necessary to solve Syria’s crisis once and for all.”

It will take more than a line or two to translate those sentences into plain English. Note the beauty of: “We cannot rely on an Assad regime… .” Not: “We will not work with the Assad regime.” Not: “The Assad regime will not be the beneficiary of our military campaign against ISIS.” And certainly not: “I remain committed to my statement of August 18, 2011 that Syria’s Assad must step down.” Instead, the/ president’s words about legitimacy delivered a strange compliment to Bashar al-Assad, implying that his regime had been legitimate at some point in the past.

As for Iran, Hezbollah, and the Revolutionary Guards—they got no mention at all, even as an Iranian armored brigade has crossed the border into Iraq to fight ISIS on the ground in defense of its client in Baghdad.

Q: What ultimately are you hoping to achieve?

A: It’s complicated.

“We stand with people who fight for their own freedom, and we rally other nations on behalf of our common security and common humanity. … [This strategy] is consistent with the approach I outlined earlier this year: to use force against anyone who threatens America’s core interests, but to mobilize partners wherever possible to address broader challenges to international order.”