The article deals with the bigger picture, which is the various strategies for trying to deal with societies bent on killing anybody who’s not one of them. You can have a tyrant do the killing, to hold everybody in line, or you can have the jihadists...
What’s not being said is that the reason this is all necessary is because Islam is violent. Wherever there are large numbers of Muslims this becomes the dilemma, because Islam insists that when Muslims are the majority, they must push for sharia (which is the execution of anybody who is not one of them). Islam is a political ideology, and wherever there are substantial numbers of Muslims there will be the push for sharia, which has to be met with an equal and opposite reaction - which means tyranny.
The only way this would ever be stopped would be to keep Muslims as a tiny fraction of the population wherever they are. If they are ever allowed to breed their way into a significant population concentration, they will become hell-bent on killing everybody else; that is the ideology of Islam. It’s like poison; the only way it’s safe is if it is diluted.
There is also the approach of trying to talk Islam out of the teachings of Mohammed. If Islam could be subverted out of the political ideology that Mohammed espoused, then Muslims could become civilized. That’s what Egypt’s leader, Al Sisi, is pushing for.
Obama does not support Al Sisi, in any way. Obama’s guy for Egypt was the Muslim Brotherhood Islamist, Morsi. Al Sisi believes in protecting people of ALL religions, because he doesn’t buy into Mohammed’s savagery.
Obama’s opposition to Al Sisi is very, very revealing. His strategies are NOT to come up with a peaceful solution. His strategies are to end up with dead Christians and Jews.