Nuclear, no. But as a part of strategic assessment of different...

Nuclear, no. But as a part of strategic assessment of different options, yes (ie: if it exists, it will be considered, even if its prospects of use are extremely remote).

Back in '69, the nuclear option was canvassed by the Nixon White House, as part of bombing Hanoi and the Ho Chi Minh Trail, but just as quickly as having been considered, it was subsequently dismissed.

The greater likelihood is one of considering when, or if, in-theatre use of nuclear devices (low yield, etc) will be used.

Of greater concern is the scenario under which a chemical or biological attack is launched against coalition forces, or against Israel.

If against coalition forces, the nuclear option (despite being talked about) is unlikely to be used.

If, however, against Israel, then the retaliation by the Israeli's is likely to be rapid, overwhelming and nuclear based.

Consideration of "what if's" will always occupy the minds of strategic assessment planners. So too will be the notion of aniticpating them, countering them, and eliminating them.

So, nuclear option, unlikely, to remote. But the wildcard remains the introduction of C-B agents, or of an intimidatory strike against Israel.