The press gaggle on Air Force One on Sunday produced a foreign-policy doctrine. Asked whether the United States would intervene in Iran’s domestic protests, the President said: “We’re looking at some very strong options.”
He repeated the phrase. Very strong options. It is the kind of phrase that arrives in the place a specific answer would otherwise occupy. It is descriptive of nothing. It is the verbal equivalent of standing up to leave the room and then sitting down again.
In the same exchange, the President said the leaders of Iran had called and wanted to negotiate. He did not specify which leaders, when, or about what. The Iranian foreign ministry, asked the same day, denied any such call had taken place. This is, in current usage, an unremarkable contradiction.
The protests in Iran are real. The death toll is real. The currency collapse that triggered the protests is real. None of these are in dispute. The question is whether the United States has, in any operational sense, very strong options that materially differ from the very strong options the United States has had against Iran for forty-six years. The answer, in the literature, is no. The strong options have always been the same options. The geopolitical box around them has always been the same box.
What was new on the airplane was not the options. It was the proximity. Eight days earlier the United States had, with no notice, struck a Western Hemisphere capital and captured a head of state. The same administration was now, on the same airplane, on the same Sunday, talking about strong options against a state with twenty times the population, eight times the territory, and an air defense network that has had four decades to anticipate the conversation.
The press did not press. The aides did not amend. The phrase was repeated, the gaggle ended, and the airplane landed.
A serious country distinguishes between a policy and a phrase. A casual country does not.
Calmly documenting the decline.
The breakdown.
- Factual basis The Iran protests and deaths are real. The 'options' are not specified.9/25
- Self-awareness Used the phrase three times in a five-minute exchange.6/20
- Staff containment Press secretary present. Did not amend or clarify.9/20
- Recovery attempt Pivoted to 'they want to negotiate.' Same conversation.5/15
- Public spectacle Standard transcript coverage.9/20
Was this dumb enough?
Members can adjust the score. Become a member.