as i've stated before, i think the "all options are on the table" phrase is stupid. all options are always on the table. no one has to say it for it to be true. that's why we call them "options."
but "all options are on the table" really isn't about options, it's about using military force. that's the only thing people mean when they use the phrase. when ehud barak told dick cheney that "all options should remain on the table" with regards to iran, he meant that the u.s. should consider attacking iran. he just doesn't want to say "the u.s. should attack iran" because that would be crazy. for some reason he thinks that the idea is less crazy when you say "the u.s. should attack iran" without using the words "u.s." or "attack".
but what's ironic about this instance of "all options are on the table" is that i think ehud barak does not really want all options to be considered. i mean, one option would be for the u.s. to restore diplomatic relations with iran and negotiate with them directly. i think that's one option he wants to keep off the table.
