Iran has up to nine nuke sites and all nine would have to be attacked and taken out. It's either Israel attacks all nuke sites in Iran - - or - - Israel could be gone. Does anyone think that Israel is going let itself be gone? With emphasis on - - let itself be gone? No, obviously not.
It is a widely accepted view that Israel has 300 + nuclear bombs with approx. 20% of them in their submarines. So again, if Israel is faced with extinction, Israel, as a last resort to avert extinction - will use their nuclear weapons. And poof, Iran and it's nine nuclear sites, underground or not, instantly vaporize. Unground sites would fall in on themselves. Israel will only be delayed until the trade winds are blowing from West to East - towards the mountainous region of Afghanistan to lessen collateral damage.
We might be talking about WW III here, but Israel is not going to just sit back and let itself be gone. Period! Now I'm no military scholar but I'd say this scenario is irrefutable.
What does that mean? The Arab (or Persian) nations have to hit Israel first and then and only then can Israel hit back with what JFK called, a “Full retaliatory response”?
Israel ALWAYS feels that it has to RESPOND, not initiate.
In 1973 the Israeli PM did not preempt a combined Syrian-Egyptian war because she was afraid of losing US and Western support. That cost the Israelis thousands of casualties and nearly, the country.
Throughout the Oslo Peace (War) process, Israel took terror hit after hit from 2000-2002 until she hit back in a big way.
She always feels she has to restrain herself for fear of 45 UN condemnations and now, an enemy US President.
What can she do? Initiate WWIII as many think will happen?
Now, Israel might launch, knowing the radioactive clouds would destroy them too. There aren't good or clean options. If Israel strikes, they will be destroyed by either the fallout or the counterstrikes from other Muslim states.
That's why us losing our most critical jumping off points was strategically idiotic.