@ Skoe

Stop insulting people, or you will get a forum ban....the full option version.

What is the point here ?? 

Syria and Iran have been attacking Israel for years.
The "Non-agression or Defence pact" is pointed DIRECTLY at Israel...... I hardly call that a "Defence" pact. 
Its a mutual attack at will pact through the use of Terrorist Organizations pact.

Why do you Leftists continue to defend the terror supporting, Israel hating nations ??

Israel SHOULD take out the Nuke enrichment plant in Iran.....Because the rest of the capable nations of the world have no SPINE !!!!

Israel sure does, and they have shown a quite capable ability to do the job.

lets be real here.....Israel would not use a nuke to attack Iran.

Israel would use a nuke in response to them being attacked w/nuclear weapons.  Im sure they would.

Just as Russia or China would.....Im not so sure the US would, depending on the target (being that the US Has many international interests, much more so than China/Russia/Israel).  If it were an attack on sovereign US soil vs. a civ target....Yea, the US would answer w/a nuke retaliation vs. a nation state's attack.

I would think a Nuke attack vs. Israel, by even a terror org would see a nuke on Damascus or Terran or any lesser target than that.

BUT.......

We are not talking about Nukes, I think.  We are talking about taking out a Nuke refinement plant.  Israel would use conventional, and take the international smoke screen attack. 

China, needing oil, would breath easy.
UK and France would scream bloody hell, but would also be happy.
US would be split of course, make a diplomatic bull shit boo hoo, and celebrate after 5PM.

I wouldn't like iran to have nuclear weapons and I hardly ever defend isreal in this forum. (tough I condemn the holocaust but thats something different)

Imagine:
A cold war status like between the soviets and the US. The "we die, you die" principle.

Why would it be far more risky for iran/israel:
There isn't a whole ocean between them. They don't have nuclear submarines and represent a smaller area.
-> low reaction time
They have a far bigger chance of flying over each other territories by accident. Or "invading" by accident.(especially the countries who lie next to it and could be related to iran)
-> territorial mistakes
Any madman with a little knowledge and some recources can launch a small unarmed rocket wich is a possible nuke for the enemy (maybe not from iran itself but still)
-> incidents
There always is the additional risk of a hardware failure or person to get trough the safety precautions and can actually launch such a system wich increases by every one such system in the world.
-> risk of accidential launch

The last one is greatly increased by the low reaction time.

we face this problems tough:
-one nuclear into the admosphere would practicly kill all electronics because of an EM-burst bringing half the world back to the stoneage. (2 counts for the entire world)
-nuclear radiation would spread
-other alarm systems might go off
-all recources in the area might be out of range for a long time

if Israel would attack Iran, they will face a long time war, because Iran has plenty of time to build up their defenses. this is not like the US launching some cruise missles into Sudan (Clinton Administration). Iran may lose their research facilities, but this nation is big and they had plenty of time to outsorce their producion and to build up secondary production centers. After the Israeli attack, Iran will launch counter operations, even an incasion into iraq is possible, since israeli aircraft have to cross iraq to attack iran. this can only be done with US agreement. so iran has a legitimate reason to attack US forces in iraq and afganistan, causing an all out war with high US victims. Shiits in Iraq will start an uprising to support their religious brothers in Iran. In the end iraq may fall in the hands of Iran. Is the US ready to fight a war at this scale in the election campaign? Never! We will not see an attack by Israel until the elections in the US are over and the US position in the conflict is clear.

Use of nuclear weapons: don't be fools, no legitmate administration can use nuclear weapons in a conflict. the worlds reaction would be extreme and nobody can risk that. MAD will secure the stability of the international relations and Iran is just securing it in their region.

@firewing:
"don't be fools, no legitmate administration can use nuclear weapons in a conflict. the worlds reaction would be extreme and nobody can risk that."
read my post above and argue about the different points then.

@skoe:
"I don't think it'd be that severe"
only shielded electronics will survive in about 1/2 of the globe dependant where you fire it. How can't it be that severe?

@little paul

neither israel nor iran have nuclear warheads that strong to cause that amound of EMP. the israeli weapons are old plutonium warheads and iran trys to build something for a show demonstration test. the US/USSR tests of fusion bombs would have caused what u fear.

fallout is a problem, nations will demand compensation from israel than, when because of their attacks radioactivity spreads to their territory.

nuclear strikes would active cold war detection systems, as simple earthquakes do too.

fallot depends on many factors, like winds, radioactive material in the atmosphere, rain, etc.
but this is a good point for the US NEVER to allow an israeli attack, or do you want to pay 10 or 20 Dollars / litre gas???