Iran soon?

Well, to be honest, Israel's response to a nuclear attack is unclear. Israel has never tested a nuclear bomb, and they haven't announced that they do have the bomb. As a result, Israel has no discernable nuclear policy, as it can't put one forth. Would the Israelis strike pre-emptively? Where do they even have their nukes?

China, which has a similar small amount of nukes retains its deterrent by moving them around, which keeps a first strike from guaranteeing the destruction of their arsenal. They have neither the economy, nor the desire to facilitate a nuclear buildup, and neither does Israel.

Israel, on the other hand, has not only no discernable location for their nukes, but it has no nuclear policy, as I've mentioned before. That means that whether or not the Israelis have an offensive or defensive nuclear policy is impossible to determine.

For example: in the Big Boy's Nuclear Club, nuclear power forms into a trifecta. The first, ICBMs, are easily located, and once they are launched, are impossible to recall. That makes an ICBM a purely offensive weapon that is launched in a first-strike, or in reaction to a confirmed First Strike by ICBMs. The second comes in the form of nuclear subs. Subs can be recalled, but the range of their missiles creates a necessity for their proximity off of enemy coasts. That presence is both defensive, and offensive, as Nuclear subs can discretely launch their missiles, and then re-submerge, and one can never honestly know where they are at any given time.. That is why Sub Hunters were so important to the USN, since if we couldn't keep track of Russian subs off of our coasts, there was no means of destroying them and their payloads in the event of a nuclear exchange. The third comes in the form of Strategic Bombers. Strategic Bombers are mostly defensive, as you need a couple in the air at all times, and they can be recalled. Having bombers in the air guarantees your ability to react to a nuclear strike, and whether armed with ballistic missiles or air-burst bombs, so long as you have a sizeable bomber force in the air, it's impossible for the enemy air defence to intercept all of them.

The Russians focused on ICBMs and submarines to project their nuclear policy, which gave them an offensive nuclear stance. The Soviets also developed a Civil Defense network, which would have allowed the Russians to maintain as many people and resources as possible in the event of nuclear exchange, which implies that they have a backup plan, giving them an offensive edge.

The Americans, on the other hand, focused on Strategic Bombers and nuclear subs, which gave us a purely defensive Nuclear stance. If our ICBMs were eliminated in a first strike, we would still have bombers in the air, and subs in the water, which would guarantee a reactionary strike. The Americans also never developed a Civil Defense, which means that our position was purely reactionary, and that we relied completely on the deterrent effect of our nuclear arsenal.

We don't know, however, what the Israelis are arming their nukes on. That means that Mossad could be maintaining a device in Tehran for all we know. It's because of this impossible discernability that Israel's neighbors have kept their mouths shut, so as not to disturb the hornet's nest. Iraq and Iran, however, don't share a border with Israel, so they've been able to afford to talk shit, as the prospect of a military buildup against Israel is politically infeasible.

Jam it back in, in the dark.

Weapons systems do need live targets for effective testing, yes. Combat conditions are much more important than testing.

There's nowhere I can't reach.