Do you mean the dwarven maniacs were going to attack us even if we totally didn't desecrate and loot their ancient tombs?
This is not a new feeling for me: I noted it in the aftermath of the first war with the dwarves when we did not take the offered settlement; I noted it again when we attacked Ceodwell for the second time. (Yes, I still believe that treaty was valid, and yes, I know others disagree on its merits.) Seeing a pattern of behavior, that's how I started to play Cyl: often he escalates conflict too easily, settles too slowly, and holds grudges too tightly. Houlandin is intemperate, but the substance of his charges is sound – we wouldn't have the Empire we have today if Cyl had been less a Conqueror, but that does not mean he is managing it well. Some wars were defensive, but far from all, and Eval and the dwarves left us weak and stretched thin when our obligations call.
Then, playing as Leath (forced to wait for grisly reports and unable to use his talents until too late), I see no overriding reason to defend Cyl.
This is an opinion. I respect that a number of my fellow voters interpret some events otherwise or have a different sense of Leath's affiliations.
My vote for A was in some hope, perhaps again falsely estimated, that Cyl would be deposed or relieved of all but figurehead duties by his sons in Council. Afterward while playing a successor I would offer every prudent assistance to Cydwyl that I can; effectively what everyone is saying for D but with Cyl removed from power. Don't mistake my vote for A as intending to give up on Cidric.