I don't think any of those options will work. An ideology can't be bombed nor contained. IS can't be negotiated with in a rational manner.
To me, the only real way IS can be beaten is if moderate Islam is able to create a more compelling ideology. Moderate Islam is up against a group that calls for violence against the West, calls everyone but themselves infidels, promises rewards for those who join them, claims it's a Muslim's duty to join them, etc. Then you get the other side, which is the odd protest (which, to be fair, is often under-reported), retrospective condemnation when an attack occurs, and calls of "not true Islam" and "not in my name". It's timid.
One of the critiques by the "Yes" side on the Scottish independence referendum was that "No" was too negative. I think the same applies here - condemnation is fine, but unless backed-up by positive reasons, moderate Islam is always going to be fighting a defensive ideological war on the backfoot. They should be trying to win over those who are undecided, not just trying to "not lose them" to extremism. Because from the West's perspective, unless moderates do something about it, the West will do it for them. One could argue they already have.
Bombing IS and all that will help in the short-term but this is simply going to create a power vacuum that will be filled with "IS2". Any political solution cannot be decided by the West because it would never be accepted by the people on the ground.