The 3 endings described by the editorial may be unhappy. However, the critical distinction is between those outcomes that are merely unhappy and those that are catastrophic. Outside the narrow circle of revivified neocons, can one maintain that an attack on Iran is a gamble with a possible unhappy (but just unhappy) outcome?

The editorial writer throws out a problem, and tells us that all the solutions are bad and proposes half-heartedly at the end a "sanctions resolution with sharper teeth". In all likelihood that won't work either.

If that is the case, we will need to face the three alternatives with a clearer idea about what we can live with and what will be disastrous. The editorial dodges that question, and instead  argues in a backhanded way that the three alternatives are equally bad.

That is where you are disingenuous or assume your readers are.