Why Obama Should Take Out Iran's Nuclear Program - Eric S. Edelman, Andrew F. Krepinevich Jr., and Evan Braden Montgomery

http://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/136655/eric-s-edelman-andrew-f-krepinevich-jr-and-evan-braden-montgomer/why-obama-should-take-out-irans-nuclear-program

I think this is the most likely scenario:

For example, the Obama administration should not discount the possibility of an Israeli-Iranian nuclear conflict. From the very start, the nuclear balance between these two antagonists would be unstable. Because of the significant disparity in the sizes of their respective arsenals (Iran would have a handful of warheads compared to Israel's estimated 100-200), both sides would have huge incentives to strike first in the event of a crisis. Israel would likely believe that it had only a short period during which it could launch a nuclear attack that would wipe out most, if not all, of Iran's weapons and much of its nuclear infrastructure without Tehran being able to retaliate. For its part, Iran might decide to use its arsenal before Israel could destroy it with a preemptive attack. The absence of early warning systems on both sides and the extremely short flight time for ballistic missiles heading from one country to the other would only heighten the danger. Decision-makers would be under tremendous pressure to act quickly.

Unless they are delusional, Iran's decision to acquire nuclear weapons has to include the problem that, upon acquisition, Israel will launch a nuclear attack on them. The solution is to squirrel them away and develop them at hardened sights, then to deploy them in a scattered fashion around Iran. This would always keep the Israelis guessing as to whether they have truly located all of the weapons.

For Israel to suffer a nuclear attack, it would be disaster for Israel. For Iran to suffer a nuclear attack, it might even be what the regime considers a victory.