What is truly depressing is the absence of critical analysis in this country of Israel's warmongering. No-one asks the obvious question: how is Iran a threat to Israel? In the unlikely event that Iran attacked Israel the Israelis would retaliate. As the world's fourth or fifth largest nuclear power they have the means to wipe Iran off the map, to borrow the much misquoted phrase attributed to Iran's Ahmadinijad. Of course to acknowledge Israel's retaliatory capacity is to acknowledge its nuclear status and that is clearly a forbidden topic among the Australian commentariat.
Seymour Hersh has an interesting discussion with Amy Goodman on yesterday's Democracy Now program: www.democracynow.org. He exposes the bluff and bluster for what it is. The terrifying thing is that the Israeli's are mad enough (as their foreign policy of the past 60 years testifies) to do the unthinkable.
The Gillard government and their echo chamber on the Liberal benches would no doubt come up with a rationalisation.

Short answer, no.
It remains to be seen whether the U.S would even back them if they did, there's a widespread view (not just among the Israeli right either) that Israel has been sold out, that when the next war starts they will be left to their fate.
The Israelis never, I mean NEVER telegraph their punches, they just strike when it suits them and then deny any operation took place, even if they did hit the Iranian nuclear facilities it'd be made to look like an accident, like STUXNET for example.
Israel simply could not survive an all out war with Iran, Syria, Lebanon and Egypt, according to a survey I read a few years ago 1/4 of Israelis said that they'd leave the country if Iran attacked them. They would lose militarily and the civilians would mostly move to the U.S, so Ahmedinijad's prediction would come true, that Israel would no longer be found on any maps.

Jay writes

'so Ahmedinijad's prediction would come true, that Israel would no longer be found on any maps. '

history shows that many have tried to wipe out Israel. You need to be blind not to see that despite being outnumbered many times the God they are in covenant with has last laugh. Seems like many refuse to read the end of the book.

It's interesting to speculate on a role reversal to see just how heavily our Foreign Affairs are weighted toward Israel and against Iran.
Imagine for just one moment that the STUXNET virus had been developed in Iran and deployed against Israel. Can't you hear the howls of indignation, the call to arms?
And yet when Israel developed it and deployed it against Iran, we hear nothing!
Now why is that?

That's not true, when Israel has fought it's always been with overpowering numerical, intelligence and technological advantages.
In the beginning of the 1948 war the Arab armies had about 23,000 combat troops to Israel's 38,000, at the war's height the Israelis held a nearly two to one advantage.
I'd recommend you read Eli Cohn's, "Our Man In Damascus" for an understanding of the role intelligence gathering played in the Six Day War, he was embedded in the Syrian government and fed every detail of the Arab plans to Mossad, forewarned is forearmed, as they say.

This is not 1948 or 1967, recent events have shown that the IDF is not as formidable as it seems, it can flatten a city from the air but it can't hold it's ground in a stand up fight:
http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/HJ12Ak01.html

Even without carrying out such threats, just making threats against Iran can stimulate instability in an already unstable region.
However, are we subjected to a one-dimensional picture of the Middle East, with an overexposed emphasis on Israel at the expense of other conflicts within the same region, as the following article explains?
http://frontpagemag.com/2011/11/21/religious-intolerance-the-real-middle-east/