Good points, although to deter you actually have to have a credible nuclear capability and IMHO, Iran has nothing it actually needs to deter against (a US invasion is logistically a non-starter and politically impossible to do).
It more ties into it's ambitions of being a regional player. The nuke is mostly to deter Isreal and allow it to flex its' muscles more in Lebanon and the Occupied Territories and allow them to act to stabilize the cluster**** that will be post withdrawl Afghanistan. I almost think it would be beneficial to help prevent Israel from it's unfortunate slide towards facism, as well as to bring a measure of justice to the Palestinians
Not if your name is Idi Amin, Slobodan Milošević, Muammar Gaddafi, Manuel Noriega or Saddam Hussein, all of whom lost their regimes to foreign attack or shortly after it.
With the exception of Noriega and Hussein, all of those involved internal uprisings as well, not just a straight projection of force or a bombing campaign. And the latter of those required two invasions, decimation of the nation's infrastructure, and a decade long occupation just to transfer over from Hussein to a different strongman. Iran hasn't really been that henious in supressing internal dissent. An attack, especially one lead by the US and/or Israel, would turn the hostility outward rather than inward. And the Iranian army isn't as disorganized and desperate as the Iraqi one was in GWII or the Taliban were at any point during the Afghan war.
Israel? They're prone to some reckless acts, but they have some morals.
I'd suggest avoiding the topic of the morality of the Israeli government/military. It's a touchy issue for some.
However, I don't think you can provide a serious argument against either Israel being hostile to Iran, or to Israel being a nuclear power.