BH, I'm not denying that the oil fields are high in US thoughts; but in my view, this is for strategic reasons, rather than any immediate "business concerns". The strategic aim here is two-fold; to arrest the alarming speed with which IS has been able to spread its influence, and to secure infrastructure (e.g. Oil-feilds and refineries) which would be to IS strategic benefit. The timeline for intervention is driven by the above. Sort out the strategic aims, and the "business reasons" rather take care of themselves.
Clearly, saving the Yazidis, serves neither of those strategic aims, hence there must be another reason for it......and I think it's self-evident that it's being driven by humanitarian concern.
As to the wider-point, the US is rather damned if it does, and damned if it doesn't.
Obama has tended towards a more withdrawn position (in terms of foreign policy) than previous administrations, but the emeregnce of IS demands a response. The area is a tinder-keg as it is, and the creation of a Sunni-fundamestalist State on Iran's border, would be like putting a match to it. Israel could also get drawn into matters, at which point, the entire region goes up in a puff of smoke......and who knows how far the collateral damage would reach?
By any definition, IS represent a clear and present danger, and a co-ordinated response (preferably involving a far-reaching global coalition) is absolutely warranted.
