Cirincione's piece comes pretty close to saying we should take military options off the table. Nasr and Takeyh say no such thing; they just think we should try engagement and that military action could be very unwise. Ditto for Pollack and Beers.
There's a difference between saying military action would be unwise and actually saying that it should be "off the table." For the government to publicly take options off the table would be to commit itself to a policy of no military action. It's a serious diplomatic posture, not just a statement about the wisdom of a particular course of action action. You would have to be pretty much certain that military action wouldn't accomplish your desired objectives and be certain that your adversary knows this. (I'm bracketing the question of whether these conditions are met in this particular case -- that is, whether I believe we should take military options off the table.)
Notice, importantly, that none of the people Yglesias cites actually say we should take military options off the table, which, if they meant it, they easily could. It's not as if they're too unschooled in foreign affairs to not know what that means. From what I can tell, with the (possible) exception of Cirincione, they've consciously chosen not to take the position that Yglesias is ascribing to them.
UPDATE: Ezra is citing more people. Again (and I haven't followed all of his links), none of them seems to be saying that a US leaders should publicly take military options "off the table." And again, there's a difference between noting the (probably extreme) counterproductiveness of military action against Iran and actually saying we should publicly commit to never doing it. It may seem silly to draw a distinction like that, but it's there, it's legit, and it's probably the reason none of the guys Yglesias and Ezra are citing are saying the words those two want them to say, which, again (again!), I think they could if they wanted to.
UPDATE 2: More here. Same problem (with a couple possible exceptions, like Hagel), just judging by a quick skim of what these people are saying, though some of it's certainly closer to the position that we should have a public, diplomatic, military-options-off-the-table position.
For what it's worth, my own view (influenced by the experts) is that military action with Iran would be a terrible idea; I've lamented this administration's Iran policy since the moment that country was dubbed a member of the "axis of evil" (which, history has shown, was a pretty awesome deal for 2 of the 3 charter members); and I would be unopposed to a President committing himself to a non-aggression pact with Iran (though I'm currently unclear on why someone should concede up front -- in the vein of the "off the table" position -- something for which they could extract notable concessions).
UPDATE 3: Kevin Drum takes pretty much the exact same position I have:
Unfortunately, with the possible exception of Cirincione ("it is a dangerous stick to wave"), none of these analysts actually recommends taking military action irreversibly off the table. They do say that military action against Iran would be a bad idea, but even Baer agrees with that. The same experts who are recommending everything be left on the table, he says, are also advising "in no uncertain terms that a military strike against Tehran, much less total war, would be long, nasty, costly, and unwise."
So far, then, the argument seems to go to Baer on points.
