>I find that very unlikely, especially since the attacking nation would definitely be destroyed as well.
You're talking about a region where suicide bombing is perhaps the most common attack method now. I think its clear that our definition of rationality is different from Iran's regime (as opposed to Iranian people).
I agree Israel is a relatively minor issue. The real conflict here is Sunni-Shiite and Farsi-Arab (Iran-Iraq war alone probably had more casualties than the entire 100 year Arab-Israeli conflict). If Iran has a nuclear capability, it's unthinkable that Saudi Arabia or Egypt or, at a later stage, Iraq, will not strive to have it as well. You will get a multi-lateral arms race in the most volatile region in the world.
On the other hand, it's impossible to stop Iran forcefully. The best you could hope for is to delay it, hoping that the current regime will be replaced by a more rational one.
You're talking about a region where suicide bombing is perhaps the most common attack method now. I think its clear that our definition of rationality is different from Iran's regime (as opposed to Iranian people).
I agree Israel is a relatively minor issue. The real conflict here is Sunni-Shiite and Farsi-Arab (Iran-Iraq war alone probably had more casualties than the entire 100 year Arab-Israeli conflict). If Iran has a nuclear capability, it's unthinkable that Saudi Arabia or Egypt or, at a later stage, Iraq, will not strive to have it as well. You will get a multi-lateral arms race in the most volatile region in the world.
On the other hand, it's impossible to stop Iran forcefully. The best you could hope for is to delay it, hoping that the current regime will be replaced by a more rational one.