The two main threats that an Iranian bomb would present deal with hegonomy. And, regardless of which side would espouse it, a Nixonesque ability to give an opponent pause to pursue a path of conventional warfare or unilateral action, such as if a nation were to bomb the airforce of say, Egypt, Jordan, Syria, and so on, as a pre-emptive strike. Of course, no rational nation would do such a thing, But who ever accused Israel of having rational leadership? How bout if an opposing nation had a nuclear option, would that perhaps cause that certain nation to act like a civilized state and a responsible member of the international community? Actions like that, are what a nuclear Iran would take off of the table, for such a nation. THAT, is what Israel fears, and regards as an existential threat. It would be forced to be more, well, civil. Is that really all that bad?? Food for thought...
Justice Ministry: Information examined by AG about Gal Hirsch didn't come from police (Haaretz)
from the article: Iranian threat to destroy Israel doesn't hold up