Well, first and foremost the Israeli strike was on a facility that was a part of Iraq's civilian nuclear power program. Some more points:
1. The design of Osirak was not well suited for plutonium production.
2. It was to be continually monitored throughout operation so that plutonium would not be produced and diverted to a weapons program.
3. The strike prompted Saddam to greatly expand his nuclear weapon program.
4. It drove that program underground.
5. The true extent of that underground program was not discovered and dismantled until post-Gulf War.
***
So this is what I think of the Israeli strike. Operation of the Osirak reactor would not have resulted in the acquisition of nuclear arms, or even greatly helped it. The strike itself accelerated Iraqi acquisition of nuclear arms due to the consequential expansion of Saddam's nuclear program, outside the eye of the international community. If Saddam didn't screw up by invading Kuwait, he would be nuclear, sooner than if the strike had not occurred.
***
I say the lessons of the strike are the opposite of what you believe them to be. Iran is building a civilian nuclear power program, under IAEA inspections. A strike on it will prompt them to change their policy aims and acquire nuclear weapons. A strike will drive that program underground, and that program will result in its intended aim. A strike will not delay the acquisition of nuclear arms by Iran, but only ensure it.
But this isn't Iraq in the eighties. We can only surmise what the blowback of an attack will be, but its is likely to be severe, in the oil price shock alone. The consequences of action in this manner worse than no action, to say nothing of its criminality.
That whole "we demand an Islamic Republic in Iraq" type of thing, you know 
Facebook
Twitter