The future of... an attack on Iran

If Israel has nuclear weapons, why shouldn't Iran?
Most of the world assumes that Israel has a substantial amount of nuclear weapons (some estimates go as high as 400 warheads), and therefore this question is being asked. The answer is quite simple: Israel has never threatened to annihilate any other sovereign nation, not even its worst enemies. According to some sources, the only time Israel was close to using its nuclear arsenal was in late 1973, when both the Syrian and Egyptian armies invaded it and there was a real threat to the nation's existence.

There is an opinion that like it happened with China, Iran will also become more moderate and rational when they get nuclear power. I am not sure if this is a similar case, because back in the 1960s, China was mostly isolated after it severed its ties with USSR. Iran on the other hand, gets support from Russia, China, North Korea and some south American nations. As flimsy as this support is, it does reduce Iran's incentive to become more tolerant towards the West.

Should Iran be attacked?
I hope not. Wars are never a good idea and may cause instability, however the difference here is the fact that Iran already causes instability by itself as a part of their foreign policy, either by themselves or by proxies like the Hezbollah. If there will be a military attack it will to be large, in order to completely stop the Iranian nuclear weapons program: the enrichment and production facilities are scattered all over this large country, many of them fortified and underground which makes aerial bombings very difficult and mostly ineffective. The main reason for an attack is that diplomacy has failed abd sanctions have mostly failed as well, and we're close to the point when we will have to use what Clausewitz called "the other means".

If an attack happens, who should conduct it?
The country that has most to gain from an attack on Iran is obviously Israel, even if it will suffer from consequences like international protests, Iran-sponsored terror attacks and direct retaliation in the form of missiles attacks. Unfortunately Israel simply doesn't have the means: its fleet of F-16I and F-15I attack airplanes, ballistic missiles and submarines, won't be able to go through such a large-scale, long-range attack. Ideally, it should be a coalition of those who Iran threatens, meaning US, EU, Arab and Israeli forces. This obviously cannot happen, and we will need to remove Israel from this coalition. An American-European-Arab coalition was formed in 1991 against Iraq, which was a far weaker enemy, which received far less international support than Iran. My best bet will be just a coalition of the US and the EU, without official Turkish or Arab involvement.

And what if the Iranians are telling the truth, and do not develop nuclear weapons?
Ironically, that reminds me of how Israel objected to international supervision over its nuclear facility in the 1960s. If Iran has nothing to hide, why would it object so much to international supervision? The UN made it clear that nuclear research, energy production and weapon development are not internal affairs. Israel was at least honest about it and refused to sign the nonproliferation treaty. Iran did sign it but refuses to cooperate and remove suspicion. Let's face it, this behavior does not induce confidence.