The opposite. They're thinking "if we try to do this, we will die, because their intelligence knows where we are at all times".
This war is quite paradigm shifting in multiple ways, and I'm hopeful it serves as a strong deterrent. No longer will soldiers be the first to die. The leadership is now first to die, and within a week. That significantly alters the incentives for pursuing war. This was never the case until today.
Knowing "where you are" is irrelevant. Iraq was invaded under the pretense of having weapons of mass destruction, so the rational thing to do is having them anyway, cause the US can bomb you anytime if you don't. Meanwhile, North Korea is 100% fine.
The Ayatollah wasn't killed, but Gaddafi and Hussein were, while the Kim family is still fine.
So from a regime leader point of view, it's better to have a nuclear weapon than not have it. For a member of the population it's probably a good idea to stay away from it.
Just wait for China to get rich enough to counter American military dominance, and then ally with them for protection. Iran is already half way to becoming a Chinese vassal state, either it falls apart or becomes one completely after this.
This is the ultimate gamble here. On one path, those considering a nuke could be deterred after realizing the Trump administration is willing to use that as a reason to attack. On the other path, countries could either decide the risk of attack is necessary or estimate the risk of future administrations acting similarly as low enough to go for the bomb.
This war is quite paradigm shifting in multiple ways, and I'm hopeful it serves as a strong deterrent. No longer will soldiers be the first to die. The leadership is now first to die, and within a week. That significantly alters the incentives for pursuing war. This was never the case until today.