One reason Iran wouldn't nuke Isreal, page 1

Iran won't strike a nuclear missile at Israel, why would they conduct such a hairbrained operation if the weaponry can be transferred to a loyal proxy, such as Hezbollah or Hamas? The danger of Iran having nuclear technology is not the tenuous and scanty prospect of the use of said technology by the Iranian state itself, but rather the utilization of nuclearly enriched materials by Iran's cells abroad against Israeli or international targets. It has been positively confirmed that Hezbollah operates in proximity to the Mexican border; would you take the chance that a nuclear device will be employed close to or inside American soil? The operative conclusion stemming from the aforementioned realization is that the Iranian nuclear program has to be abolished, lest a catastrophe of an international scale will occur.

As for your remark that Iran wouldn't risk ravaging the so-called "holiland": first of all, this claim is anything but new. Secondly, it's wrong: the Islamic mentality allows inflicting bane to Muslims if it serves the purpose of Jihad, so you shouldn't expect this objective-centered enemy to treat its adversaries with any form of dignity and decency, much less respect their religious sentiments. Iran will annihilate the Palestinians -- their Muslim brethren -- just to invoke maleficence to their perceived Israeli enemy. But again, let me repeat this once again for the mentally-challenged: the basis for the opposition to the Ayatollahs' nuclear program is not the slim risk that in some indefinite future Iran will decide to turn Israel into a drainage via a direct capitalization of an atomic bomb, but rather the arrival / smuggling of nuclearly enriched materials to the hands of terrorist organization such as Hebollah, Hamas, or even Al-Qaeda, who will then proceed to employ said materials in order to extirpate, say, a city which belongs to the "infidels".

Some believe that Israel does not deserve its own nuclear weapons. Without addressing this claim in lenght, let me remark that the danger posed to the world by Israel's nuclear reactors is miniscule tody compared to the danger it will pose when Israel turn into a theocracy. However, whether or not Israel's reactors constitute any danger to the international community, it is irrelevant when addressing the Iranian affair; two wrongs (regardless of whether or not Israel's nuclear program is indeed 'wrong') don't make a right; and so there's no reason to mention Israel's nuclear program when discussing the Iranian issue, and the preceding claim regarding the legitimacy or illegitimacy of Israel's nuclear program has been brought forth for the sake of its dismissal alone, not for its relevancy to the discussion and not for its refutation / validation.

Every opportunity ought to be seized to remind the global community of the dangers posed by Iran's nuclear program: a) the transfer of the nuclear weaponry into the control of terrorists; b) the subversion of the balance-of-power as well as (and more so) of the balance-of-terror hitherto established in the Middle-East; c) the fortification of the Ayatollas' grip over the Iranian citizenry, i.e. the strengthening of the Iranian regime; and d) the propaganda potential of such a nuclear achievement and its sway over the Islamic as well as the non-Islamic worlds. This argument, with all its reasonings, culminates in the conclusion that the Iranian nuclear program has to be abolished, the sooner the better.