The problem is not action or in-action in the Middle East, it's lack of consistency.

We support the rebellion in Libya, gaining significant political capital, this triggers a mass uprising in Syria with the expectation that NATO will help topple Assad. We prevaricate (for years), the rebellion stalls, the country is ruined, the Arabs in the Middle East are convinced we only supported Libya for the oil. This leads to a general backlash, the liberal forces in Libya and elsewhere are marginalised and discredited by Western contamination.

Into the vacuum steps ISIS.

One could make the argument that if we had not intervened in Libya things would be better in Syria now but one could equally make the argument that if we had intervened promptly in Syria things would be better in both countries now.

It's easy to say "we should" or "we shouldn't" but it's impossible to know what would have happened either way. What can be said is that we do not have a coherent policy on the Middle East and so we react on an individual basis, and the Arabs interpret this as opportunism.