Why No Apparent Good Option Exists For Iranian Nukes

From Dem. in America Economist blog:
How would a nuclear Iran change the dynamic in the region?

Prof. Rashid Khalidi (Columbia Univ): A nuclear-armed Iran is an outcome to be avoided if at all possible, as is any further nuclear proliferation in this volatile region. However, this problem must be addressed in the context both of a reduction in the nuclear arsenals of the major powers, and as part of a regional non-proliferation effort. The latter would perforce have to place on the table not only Iran’s nuclear ambitions, but also the considerable nuclear arsenals of Israel and Pakistan, both of which concern Iran and other regional powers. All of this would require ending the ongoing American-Iranian mini-cold war, itself a tall order.

However, if such an ambitious approach fails or is sabotaged (whether by Israel, Iran or in the corridors of power in Washington), as may well happen, the most likely alternatives are unpalatable in the extreme: a nuclear-armed Iran, which would be on a hair trigger, especially if regional conflicts are not defused; and an attack on Iran, whether by Israel or the United States. The latter option would lead to several grave outcomes, among them an unquenchable determination on the part of an embittered Iranian leadership to obtain nuclear weapons, whatever the cost, an effort that would probably eventually succeed, with incalculable consequences."
http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2009/04/six_questions_for_rashid_khali.cfm

TW: Well that sounds promising...but Khalidi does frame some of the challenges although no viable solutions. But then the challenges are fairly obvious. Neither Pakistan nor Israel are going do anything with their nukes to placate Iran partly because their nukes are not oriented primarily or even secondarily in Pakistan's case towards Iran. An attack on Iran would open a pandora's box of problems but then Iran's possession of nukes would as well.

One always circles back to reality that Iran wants nukes and passive measures will not dissuade them, hence one either works with a nuclear Iran or attacks them. Most are comfortable stating that neither of those options is acceptable. I suspect the endgame is near by which Israel/U.S./Iran engage a game of chicken relative to the attack threat. I remain convinced the Iranians will win the game of chicken.