So we can safely say that all is in flux. And why shouldn’t it be?
But you are not addressing the entirety of FP, just the hot issues like Korea and Syria.
FP is about using words, ie statements, to influence other states’ behavior.
The Syria strike is an extension of policy. No chemical weapons on civilians — that might be called an Obama doctrine.
It is hard to view it as a 180, as think tank pundits suggest. There is a direct follow through from the 2013 agreement not to use chem weapons, which was violated, resulting in punitive action. Some confuse thatwith a policy shift toward Syria. It’s not. it’s contained in the “doctrine” on chem. weapons.
With NK, Tillerson is adapting to shifting facts on the ground. But again policy is essentially statements. The goal is — I believe, but I could be wrong — to bring NK to the table. That would be a greater coup for Trump than a surely catastrophic strike.
These implied threats are essentially instruments that along with other tactics attempt to modify behavior. THAAD and China are part of that structure.
Don’t mistake my comments for support of the adminstration. But the FP situation is a little like the complexities of 3D chess. I haven’t even brought up domestic war-lobby interests. Lindsay graham is a very happy man right now. Why is it acceptable for senators to be psychotic?