When the President sez

"all options are on the table" with respect to Iran, isn't he waving a checkered flag in front of every two bit crackpot neocon pseudo-intellectual from within and without this Admin to rush home and start their tactical nuclear target lists?
In the wake of Seymour Hersh's revelations on tactical nuclear options being considered for use in Iran, what else could be the result of such a bumptious statement from the President?
He is keeping Rumsfeld and he is perfectly willing to countenance tactical nuclear warfare in the Middle East, nuff said.
Normally, nuclear threats like this are either policy gaffes (as was the case with Truman in the late fall of 1950) or else they are complex attempts to get one's opponent to the negotiating table.
Of course, in order for The Bomb to play a part in diplomacy, a careful diplomatic framework has to be both erected & simulataneously concealed as the threat of nuclear weapons is less important than the relative advantages one can derive from the threat.
Alas we must face facts, this sort of arcane thinking isn't Bush's strong suit.
When Harry Truman mis-spoke himself and implied that the US was considering the use of nuclear weapons in Korea, British PM Clement Atlee flew across the Atlantic for consultations, the newspapers debated the wisdom of renewed nuclear warfare...a debate was had over the issue even as the fighting dragged on Korea.
Last week Bush openly hinted at the use of nuclear weapons against Iran and was greeted with...silence.
Did Tony Blair fly to DC in a a lather?
Did the White House issue a retraction?
Did Chris Matthews break into a sweat?
No nothing...we've become fatally accustomed to the President's bluster and habitual threats.
Meanwhile, a host of snarky self righteous ideologues from within and without the DoD are holed up in their offices like teenaged nerds giggling morbidly and playing the nuclear equivalent of "Battleship" with maps of Iran.

Such is the state of civilization
as of 2:20pm EST