The very principle of "Mutually Assured Destruction" implies that nuclear war is two sided. There is no incentive for A to bomb B, because B has a few warheads in the seabed somewhere that will annihilate A if A attacked B in the first place.

This is a fundamental concept of International Relations, and the neo-realist doctrine that Nuclear Powers do not attack one another leans fairly heavily on this.

So it was really incredibly moronic for Senator Clinton to even accept the premise "would you bomb Iran?" and it demonstrates that she fails to understand something fundamental about Foreign Policy.

Face it: if Iran nuked Israel, there would be no Iran left to destroy. This is Clinton sounding fake-tough for the Rust Belt, or just not knowing an insane question when she hears one.