As for the US nuclear missile training/planning you can be sure that they still run scenarios aimed at taking out Russian nuclear missile sites as well as the sites that still exist in the former USSR. Because you just can't ignore nuclear weapons even in countries that are being "nice" at the moment.
In the same vein I'm sure the Chinese sites are routinely planned/drilled against, as well as the Pakistani, Indian, French, etc. weapons facilities. Hell, I'm sure the US planners have contingency plans for even taking out Israel's nuclear arsenal, just on the off chance that the state of Israel suddenly collapses and someone like Hamas has the remote possibility of getting their hands on one of the weapons. That's a very unlikely scenario, but it should be planned for.
I mean if they aren't planning for such strikes on any or all of those targets, allied and pontentially hostile alike then they don't deserve to keep their jobs. Like I said you can't ignore any known nuclear weapon anywhere in the world, no matter who owns it and how much of a friend they are because things change and just because someone builds it, it doesn't mean they necessarilly will always have positive control over it.
As for the "top secret Israeli plan" up there, like it's been said if they aren't preparing for it then they don't deserve to keep their jobs in the IAF either. Whether or not it's likely is another story. I think that someone, be it Israel or the US, will have to deal with Iran's potential nuclear weapons capability at some point. Whether or not that's done with nukes, or even with conventional strikes remains to be seen, diplomacy is the best option sure but if that isn't going to work then you can't put up a blanket statement that "well we just simply can't even conceive of using military action let alone nukes against Iran" or that will both undercut your negotiating position (since they know there's no stick backing it up) or if military action is needed then your public will be up in arms because you said it was off the table.
Personally I don't have any problem with the IAF taking out Iran's nuclear sites. I mean just to get there they'd have to fly over at least one Muslim country, and if that (or those) countries let them then it sends a fairly strong signal to the rest of the Muslim world that it isn't necessarilly a non-Muslim vs. Muslim thing, but a non-insane nations vs. insane one thing. Publically they'd say the usual things, but privately you can bet your bippie that the Turks, Jordanians or Saudis would perfectly happy if Iran's nuclear ambitions went away, even if they had to swallow that the IAF (or USAF) did it.
At least that's how I see it at this point.
__________________
|