I think you played too much "Risk" as a kid, but it might not hurt to give Mr. Clancy a call so he can help jumpstart your career as a novelist.
I think once you account for a serious variable that did not have a role in previous global conflict--the 24 hour news cycle and unprecedented real-time access, and thus the utter inability of people to accept, and thus willingly cause, widespread civilian casualties--this does not get any farther than a tactical (i.e., US equipment emblazened with the Star of David) strike on Iranian facilities.
Great post though!
A sobering and frightening (if perhaps a tad alarmist) prospect indeed. There were, of course, nay-sayers who brought up similar potential global war / doomsday scenarios after 9/11, Afghanistan, and Iraq too. Fortunately they did not come to pass (yet).
While I admit to having no idea whatsoever what will happen with Iran - and fear that the US is so hamstrung that it will do what amounts to nothing - in the larger scale money will talk. The economies of the various big players are too intertwined now to allow such a catastrophe to occur.
In response to Deuce:
I think you played too much "Risk" as a kid . . .
Maybe. What's your point? 
In response to TSL:
There were, of course, nay-sayers who brought up similar potential global war/doomsday scenarios after 9/11, Afghanistan, and Iraq too. Fortunately they did not come to pass (yet).
I think the difference is that there is no question that Iran is today playing a game in order to distract the world and delay any potential punitive reaction in order to obtain nuclear weapons. When a nation like Iran (with leadership like Iran's) announces its intention to push for nuclear capability (oh wait, I'm sorry, they only want nuclear power for peaceful purposes . . . how stupid do they think we are?) and end Israel, we would be negligent if we didn't take them seriously and do something about it.
Commenting by HaloScan
