By "others", you presumably mean credible threats from enemy states (since we allow Israel to secretly harbor nuclear weaponry with no problem). But no, I don't think that. I think it's nuanced, and I think that it's wrong to frame it with language like "let", instead of saying it like it is: starting a war to intervene. War in the Middle East is historically a bad idea, and there better be a good reason to justify the senseless death. I think the seriousness of that decision should not be minimized by statements like "well we couldn't just let them do anything". There is a serious chance of this escalating into something far worse.

Unlike Iran, Israel is not a signatory to the Non-Proliferation Treaty. The official concern has always been that Iran signed the NPT, but then at various times seems to have possibly violated the terms. I'm not necessarily in favor of this recent attack, just pointing out that legally Israel and Iran are in completely different situations.

True. I doubt that the US would have this strong of a reaction to a different non-compliant country we were allied with, though. (Can you imagine the US bunker-bombing Germany, SK, AUS, etc?)

Israel signed the Rome statue and has repeatedly violated specific orders from the ICJ to prevent genocide, so let's not pretend that this is somehow about a concern for international law.

The USA doesn't recognize the ICJ so your comment is irrelevant to the article under discussion.

Another great point! The US doesn't recognize the ICJ anymore after it was caught illegally planting mines in Nicaraguan harbors and lost in the ICJ. A verdict the US still has not complied with. Just more evidence that upholding international law isn't a priority for the US.