With regard to foreign policy, are the powers of the President limited to persuasion?

With regard to foreign policy, the President's powers clearly extend beyond persuasion. Most obviously, the President is commander in chief. This means he is the chief commander of the army, and can order  specific acts. For instance, Obama, in his role as commander in chief, launched airstrikes in Syria in 2015, or the disposing of Colonel Gaddafi in 2011. This were vital events that determined the course of American foreign policy in the time, yet no congressional approval was needed. This means the President did not need to persuade anyone, so therefore, with regard to foreign policy, the President's powers indisputably extend beyond persuasion.

One may argue that the President's powers apropos foreign policy are not as extensive as they seem, pointing to the fact that for some key foreign policy decisions, such as signing treaties or declaring war, the President needs congressional approval. This seemingly adds weight to Neustadt's theory, as to declare war or sign treaties, key aspects of the President's foreign policy brief. However, there are a number of reasons why this fact does not vindicate Neustadt's theory. Firstly, there are a number of ways the President can get round these constitutional hurdles - for example, instead of declaring war, he could either establish a resolution (e.g. Gulf of Tonkin resolution in 1964), or, if congress won’t grant the funds for a resolution (which they nearly always have done, for example the Iraq War and the Vietnam War) then the President can order the armed forces to take action - for example, Obama’s intervention in Libya. The second reason this does not vindicate Neustadt's theory is that the President, although occasionally hindered by constitutional checks and balances, always sets the agenda on foreign policy - for example, even though George Bush went to congress for approval for the Iraq War, and so therefore needed to persuade congress to vote for it, in this instance his powers extended beyond persuasion as it was Bush who set the direction and goals of foreign policy. There is also the fact that Congress often gives more power to Presidents in times of crisis, or when they see fit, allowing for more power to the President. For example, congress unanimously (with the exception of 1) granted George W Bush and future Presidents to fight an ambiguous “war on terror,” allowing for far more executive power. The President can also name treaties “agreements” to bypass the need for congressional approval - for example, NAFTA, though in everything but name was a treaty, was branded an “executive agreement,” meaning the need for congressional approval was nullified. Therefore, with regard to foreign policy, the President's powers extend far beyond persuasion.