(already subscribe? log in).

Bad option on the table

James Carroll

THIS STORY APPEARED IN

February 13, 2012|By James Carroll

(ISTOCKPHOTO/GLOBE STAFF…)

THE PUBLISHED transcript of President Obama’s State of the Union address is striking for the way in which the parenthetical rubric “(applause)’’ punctuates almost every one of the dozens of paragraphs. That is true of the first half of what the president said about Iran: “Let there be no doubt: America is determined to prevent Iran from getting a nuclear weapon, and I will take no options off the table to achieve that goal. (Applause.)’’

Almost as an afterthought, there follows immediately one of the rare paragraphs from which (applause) is missing: “But a peaceful resolution of this issue is still possible, and far better, and if Iran changes course and meets its obligations, it can rejoin the community of nations.’’ What gives? The transcript underscores what a number of commentators noted upon watching the speech - that the president’s hawkish tone drew more response than the dovish. Why (applause) for “no options off the table’’ and nothing for “a peaceful resolution’’ being “far better’’?

Obviously, “all options on the table’’ is hackneyed code for a threatened military intervention, and that was the red meat for which the lions in the House chamber hungered. Obama repeated it in his pre-Super Bowl interview with Matt Lauer, who asked about an anticipated Israeli attack on Tehran’s nuclear facilities: “Our goal is to resolve this issue diplomatically,’’ Obama said. “But we’re not going to take any options off the table.’’ The run-up to America’s machismo-fest was no time to prettify the table of US foreign policy.

The selective congressional applause - loud to “all options,’’ mute to “peaceful resolution’’ - points to the complexity of President Obama’s Iran predicament. On one hand, tough talk of war as a threat under active consideration is an absolute requirement of US electoral politics. Defense Secretary Leon Panetta, also responding to speculation about an Israeli attack, used the same “all options on the table’’ cliché on the Friday before the Super Bowl. On the other hand, informed military experts, including some from Israel, insist that open war with Iran (beyond the already simmering cyber-war-and-assassination project) would be foolhardy in the extreme.