I would just like to clarify this a bit.  An EMP (electro-magnetic pulse) attack would consist of a nuclear weapon detonated high above Iran so as not to do any damage on the ground.  The electro-magnetic effect from the nuclear blast would severely disrupt Iranian electrical grids, communication, etc.  It would then allow the Israeli Air Force to bomb the nuclear sites with little opposition from the Iranians.  This, however, would not stop the Iranians from unleashing Hezbollah in Lebanon, Hamas in the Gaza Strip, and Syria against Israel.  Anyway this is viewed, this war would be one humdinger of a war that would end up encompassing many nations, and very likely the "sudden destruction" event associated with the Rapture.

Neil

P.S.  A thorough study of the "parable of the fig tree" in the Bible (Old and New Testaments) reveals that the "generation" that sees Israel's return as a nation (1948 after an absence as free nation since 721 BC) will see all end time Bible prophecy fulfilled, including the Second Coming of Israel's long-rejected Messiah, Who is Christ.

P.P.S.  For those of you who are familiar with Kenyan evangelist Dr. David Owuor, he had a vision of a nuclear blast occurring over Iran.  He also had a vision of Israeli Air Force planes leaving Israel for the attack, and returning safely to Israel!

U.S. Worries on Iran EMP Strike Began with Arutz Sheva Op-Ed

London Times notes spy agencies' 'growing concerns' triggered by article on this page they think was written by Israeli officials.

By Gil Ronen

First Publish: 9/9/2012, 6:12 PM

Arutz Sheva

Jericho III Missile

Courtesy of Israel Aerospace Industries

An August 6 opinion article by Dr. Joe Tuzara on Arutz Sheva (Israel National News) regarding Israel's possible use of an electro-magnetic pulse (EMP) bomb against Iran has triggered a chain reaction, allegedly influencing U.S. intelligence sources who have since been quoted in several publications, including the New York Post. The latest in the chain of news outlets to quote the report is the London Sunday Times.

The intelligence sources reportedly believe that the Arutz Sheva article was more than an innocent op-ed by a physician, and that it "reflects official Israeli government thinking about a possible preemptive response to Iran’s expected emergence as a nuclear weapons state in the near future." This, according to the Washington Free Beacon's Bill Gertz, who reported on the U.S. intelligence agencies' concerns August 29.

"It was the first time the issue of a nuclear EMP attack by Israel had appeared in a mainstream Israeli press outlet," wrote the Beacon.

"U.S. officials also suspect the article was written by someone in the Israeli government who favors such a strike. Another theory among analysts is that the Israeli government, at a minimum, encouraged publication of the article," it reported.

"If Israel chooses one of its Jericho III missiles to detonate a single EMP warhead at high altitude over north central Iran, there will be no blast or radiation effects on the ground," Dr. Tuzara wrote in his original article.

"Coupled with cyber-attacks, Iranians would not know it happened except for a massive shutdown of the electric power grid, oil refineries and a transportation gridlock. Food supply would be exhausted and communication would be largely impossible, leading to economic collapse. Similarly, the uranium enrichment centrifuges in Fordo, Natanz and widely scattered elsewhere, would freeze for decades."

It is not clear why the intelligence officials appear to believe the op-ed was an official Israeli message to Iran, rather than simply being the writer's opinion.

Arutz Sheva is a private publication and is usually very critical of the government's policies, especially regarding Judea and Samaria. However, it is probably the only Israel-based publication that consistently and exclusively features op-eds by thinkers who do not let the "politically correct" stream cloud their reasoning. In other words: many of the articles that appear on Arutz Sheva simply make sense. This could be have something to do with the U.S. analysts' belief that the article reflects an official position.