Good lord, that's supposedly their battle plan?
Israel can't do this alone, not and expect to achieve anything other than a massive counter-barrage from both Iran, what's left of Syria and Lebanon.
Besides, they'll take out Irans nuclear reactor, great, but what's stopping them from just building another one, but this time with Russian help and with Russian SAM launchers around it? Israel would have become an international pariah for acting first without going through the UN and Russia and China would have gained a political reason to supply Iran with all the hi-tech weaponry it needs to 'protect it from the aggressive and warlike Israel'.
Heck, politically, it could play straight into Irans court to be bombed by Israel, particularly if they refrain from retaliating and play the moral high ground in the UN on it. Of course, I doubt they will refrain from retaliating, that would cause internal trouble, but Russia and China could, and will, use a pre-emptive Israeli strike to push for sanctions on Israel in the UN, and for the removal of sanctions on Iran. The US will veto any Israeli sanctions, but its position will be increasingly untenable, and you can expect backlash against US forces in Afghanistan over it.
There is no easy way to deal with Iran, and Israel cannot do it alone, not and hope to achieve any long lasting success, it may win the battle, of that I have little doubt, but it will lose the war and suffer a great deal of damage both in terms of human casualties and political casualties. If Israel had US support, then it gets a bit easier, but you're still left with the problem that unless you put boots on the ground or create constant air superiority then it would be easy for Iran to just dust itself down and restart the program, and then ten-fifteen years down the line you're back at square one, only this time Iran has better weaponry thanks to Russia and China, and you might not even have the resources available to tackle Iran.
It's an election year this year, and neither Romney or Obama would commit to a long term campaign in Iran, it would be political suicide, in fact it's bordering on political suicide to mention any armed campaign against Iran due to the level of war weariness in the US, heck isolationism seems to be on the gentle rise in the background, if trending comments from Americans on different forums I frequent are anything to go by.
The EU...well...lol, that's the only thing I have to say about that mess, honestly I don't think it'd be able to find Tehran on a map, much less contribute to any attack against it, and as for dealing with bankers, well you forget who runs the EU Skybird, it sure as hell ain't the politicians
The UK might throw a couple of TLAMs into the equation but then we'd run out of ammo and have to withdraw so that's pretty pointless. So really, if any big nation who isn't already a friend of Iran is going to have to tackle it, then it's the US and Israel, and even with those two combined, unless Iran magically transforms back to pre-revolutionary days (lol) and becomes a western ally, then all you're going to do is make Iran stronger in the long run.
TLDR? One strike will not be enough, and yet one strike is all that Israel and the US can afford both economically and politically, and even then the price may be too high for them to pay.