There were no stunning new developments Wednesday night in a speech by President Barack Obama laying out his strategy to “degrade and ultimately destroy” the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria terror organization.

That’s because others — including U.S. and foreign military and diplomatic leaders — have been suggesting each of the four pegs of his strategy for several weeks or longer.

In a major reversal, Obama in a nationally televised speech ordered the United States to lead a broad military coalition and authorized airstrikes inside Syria for the first time as well as an expansion of strikes in Iraq, which totaled about 150 attacks so far since early August.

The airstrikes constitute the first of four parts of his strategy. The others are:

n Support and advise the troops of other coalition members, including Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Jordan and moderate factions of the Syrian opposition.

n Continue to apply intelligence, to strike key ISIS targets, deprive it of resources and isolate it from the international community.

n Provide humanitarian aid to ethnic and religious minorities in the region while protecting them from harm.

Announcing he was dispatching nearly 500 more U.S. troops to Iraq to assist that country’s besieged security forces, Obama assured Americans there would be no U.S. troops directly involved in combat. He urged Congress to authorize the train and arming rebels in Syria, who are fighting ISIS as well as Syrian President Bashar Assad.

Congress can be expected to coalesce around the president’s strategy, but the timing of his action raises several questions, the greatest among them being: What new development precipitated Obama’s action now?

Indeed, many have urged sooner action to stop ISIS. Saudi Arabia has been pleading for three years for U.S. aid and weapons for the Syrian rebels. And the argument has been made that the collapse of the Iraqi government and its security forces would not have happened if Obama had not completely withdrawn U.S. troops in 2011.

Just weeks ago, the president likened ISIS to a junior-varsity team not worthy of his full attention. On Wednesday he admitted the threat was more formidable, yet he stressed there were no known credible direct threats against any U.S. target.

The only new element was the release of video showing the brutal execution of two American journalists — and an American outcry that followed Obama’s initial reluctance to respond to the murders. The dismal polling numbers that followed and approaching midterm congressional elections are plenty of impetus for a president to act swiftly.

The linchpin to Obama’s plan might be the caliber, commitment and quantity of coalition members. Will Jordan, Saudi Arabia and others commit troops if the U.S. does not? Will Iraqi security forces fight this time, instead of fleeing en masse as they did earlier this summer ahead of ISIS’ advance?

Will Israel willingly step aside, as it did during the Iraq wars? There is no love lost between Obama and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, and it’s not a given Netanyahu will cooperate with the Syrian crisis continuing to brew on his northern border.

America should support Obama’s strategy. Congressional leaders should get behind it. The Islamic State poison is dangerous indeed.

If only the counteroffensive had begun sooner.