Jason C. writes:
Another stupid thing about the "no options off the table" rhetoric is that even those who spout it don't really mean it. There are, presumably, plenty of options that are off the table.
1. Suppose Khamenei, having just seen the last episode of South Park, offers to give up its nuclear program if President Bush agrees to suck his balls. Is that option on the table?
2. What if Iran offers to give up its nuclear program if the US agrees to remove all troops from the Middle East starting tomorrow. Is that option on the table?
3. Assume that Iran doesn't believe we would really attack them over this issue. To show them we are serious, we could drop a nuclear bomb on Syria. Is that option on the table?
Etc. etc. etc. etc. There are plenty of options that are off the table. What Hillary et al. really mean is that one particular option - attacking Iran - is very much on the table (even though it's as crazy or crazier than the options listed above).
Right, which is sort of what I'm getting at in the column. "All options on the table" is a meaningless phrase. It's purpose is, in the one case, to signal a willingness to go to war while retaining plausible deniability around what you're saying, and in the second, to signal a willingness to go to war while allowing you to imply that you wouldn't. In both cases, the point is to obscure the politicians actual intent on one of the most acute foreign policy challenges of our time. Some seem content with letting them do that, either for reasons of political expediency or diplomatic theory. I don't buy the underlying diplomatic theory, and I don't think we, as voters, should be so sanguine about our candidate's blithe unwillingness to hide critical information from us.