Not true. Israel has nukes on cruise missiles on (Dolphin class) submarines, nukes on ballistic missiles in hardened silos, and nukes on bombers. No way could a country like Iran eliminate the threats from this "nuclear triangle." In fact, it's extremely doubtful they'd be able to take out even one leg.
I don't know if this one item is true because I was reading up on this and found this on Israel Defense Forces
It has also been speculated that the Israeli Navy's three 1,925 ton Type 800 Dolphin class submarines may be capable of carrying nuclear-armed specially-modified Popeye Turbo cruise missiles. These missiles are purported to have a 1,500 km range and are supposedly fired out of what are suspected to be unusually-sized additional torpedo tubes that were allegedly installed on the Dolphin submarine and are otherwise larger than what is required to accommodate any currently known western torpedo design in existence. A test of such a missile is alleged to have taken place off the coast of Sri Lanka in May 2000. Nevertheless, some military analysts have labeled such rumors to be highly unlikely and impossible given the logistics of the submarines. Furthermore, there is no factual basis for the origins of the alleged test firing.
We could argue forever about the survivability of bombers that are a few minutes missile flight from an enemy. The Syrians put great faith in their air force in the sixties, until the Israelis wiped it out in an afternoon.
You see, it takes time to load ordnance, fuel, start engines, etc. I spent a few years on a TAC base, and I can tell you that nuclear deterrence by bombers are a tongue-in-cheek proposition at best, unless the bombers' mission is scheduled 2 to 4 hours ahead of time.
But this argument misses the point. Would you accept the annihilation of your entire family and nation, for the possible or even likely retaliation to be dealt out later? Would it then matter?
We ask the Israelis to suffer inhuman losses, then punish them with intervention once they begin to win. Will we say, "Well, let's let them first nuke a few U.S. cities, kill a few million of us, perhaps even my entire bloodline, and then let's dispassionately decide on legally acceptable retaliation that the ACLU might agree to."
It may well be that you would- I take no issue with your values or beliefs-but I admit that I will not be satisfied that we use Marquis of Queensbury rules, and let them hit us first.
When the kids are threatened, the gloves come off.