Yeh, right, Jedi Yoda. Iran exists at extreme range across several intervening sovereign states who might not want to be seen as complicit, who might actually oppose Israeli invasion of their airspace. Much of Iran actually lies beyond the operational range of Israeli aircraft, anyway. It's a big place, inhabited by 70 million people, rich in resources, largely self-sufficient, fiercely proud and independent. If attacked, they'll persist until victorious or completely destroyed, something Israel can't possibly achieve w/o resorting to nuclear weapons.
rave on, fool.
Israel->Jordan->Iraq->Iran
Israel->Syria-Iraq->Iran
Pre-stage some fuel bladders along roads near the Iran/Iraq border
Now you have the range with a heavy payload.
Jordan will not intercept and will be lucky to detect
Syria will be lucky to detect - we saw what happened a couple of years ago when their nuke program was exposed.
Even though the US is in Iraq, I do not think Iraq is manning the radar sites.
So it will probably be up to Iranian radar to detect anything coming in.
Israel would carry along with the attack payload some HARM platforms also.
Given that the Iran has minimal airforce capacity, they would be betting everything on their AA systems.
The new stuff has not been delivered; the existing stuff is of the same par (or below) that Syria used.
So from the air, Iranian targets are close to sitting ducks. Protected only by distance, politics and empty threats.
Retaliation against Israel from Iran will be minimal; retaliation against the world via oil is a different issue. But does Iran want to actually take on the world?
Check back in 3 months.
Disclaimer: the use of
"Iran" is related to its military and political leadership; not the people itself.