Jonathan Schell, writing at The Nation, gets it:
What immediately strikes one about the shape of this policy evolution is how sharply the choice of “options” has been narrowed. Obama has repeatedly said that “all options are on the table,” meaning that force may be used. Yet other options, starting with containment, were dropping off the table one after another. By the time Netanyahu departed, Obama seemed to have only two options left: should negotiations fail, will the United States strike Iran now or later?
This is the "false choice" on Iran that I and others have been warning about for a while now: that imposing ridiculous ultimatums followed by sanctions (which has become strangely known as "diplomacy") are but stepping stones to conflict rather than a substitute for conflict, and that the US has allowed itself to be painted into this corner by the pro-Israeli lobby by ignoring peaceful compromise options offered by Iran, so instead of avoiding conflict the question has become one of "shall we bomb them now, or shall we bomb them soon."
Yet another reason to be skeptical of the upcoming talks achieving any real breakthrough.