The concept of a President being pressured into waging war in Libya by a Senator and the Secretary of State is just absurd. Obama was the Commander in Chief. He could have said "no" at any time. No one forced him into it.
If you understand the forces at play, the absurdity disappears.
Our agents were already creating "facts on the ground" that the President had to act on. But beyond that, Libya was at some level, Nicolas Sarkozy's war. France saw that Iraq was very profitable for the US military industrial complex and wanted the same for itself in Libya.
Like Bill Clinton used to say, "It's the economy, stupid".
And the leader of an empire that refuses to wage war when an opportunity presents itself is not going to be very popular.
This is just conspiracy theory nonsense, a plausible seeming narrative assembled after the fact. The reality is that you have no idea why President Obama chose to act as he did. If he had decided not to intervene in Libya you could construct an equally plausible set of reasons about why that was inevitable.
Not the parent, but the geopolitical reasons why Obama chose to intervene in (say) Syria and not in (say) Saudi Arabia or Kuwait when those nations chose to machine-gun their Arab Spring protesters are pretty clear. Syria is Russian-aligned, Kuwait and Saudi Arabia are US-aligned.
So, too, are the reasons why the US refuses to act against Saudi-backed forces, or in favor of Syrian forces, or most blatantly by refusing to assist secular Kurdish forces (and risk pushing Turkey into Russian arms). Killing civilians has nothing to do with it, again see the Saudis or the Kuwaitis.
Or again, see how the US backed the military coup in Egypt, as they too brutally suppressed dissent. Gotta keep Israel safe, too.
From the US perspective, the whole area is a quagmire, which is why Obama didn't actually put troops on the ground. There is literally no one who is ideologically acceptable to everyone and actually stands a reasonable chance of winning the war. We backed our allies as far as necessary, including to the extent of brutal suppression of dissent if necessary, but no farther.
Obama's decision was that we're not going to get bogged down in another unwinnable war. Realpolitik at its finest. And all the while, the power vacuum continues to turn Syria into a bloodier and bloodier meatgrinder. Not that I have any solutions either - other than "don't mouth the slogans about democracy if you're not willing to back it up".
But again, all of this has been pretty clear for a while. It's really, truly no secret what Obama's position on this has been.
The US has intervened many times in Russian-aligned countries, so your theory doesn't fit the historical facts. I suspect the actual decision making process is far more haphazard and lacks a consistent set of rules.
I don't think you read clearly what the poster was saying, which was that the U.S. intervened in Syria and not Yemen because it was aligned with Russia and especially Iran. However, we only went so far because Obama didn't want U.S. troops on the ground and couldn't order more airstrikes, for example, without having to risk a larger conflict with Russia which supports Assad.
