That makes no sense. If you know, and as you claim Israel knows, that Israel can't effectively attack Iran's nuclear weapons program, then you've got to assume everyone knows they can't and no one will take their threats seriously and none of the things you are predicting, closing the Strait of Hormuz, etc., will take place. If you really believe Israel's threats will be taken seriously, then you must also believe that people who know far more than you do about Israel's capabilities believe an Israeli strike against Iran has at least a reasonable chance of being successful.
US aid to Israel is nominal compared to what it costs us to station troops in South Korea or Japan or Europe, and since nearly all of it is given in the form of credits to buy military hardware and ammunition from US companies, creating US jobs and local, state and federal taxes, it represents net transfers of wealth within the US economy, whereas maintaining troops abroad produces transfers of wealth out of the US economy.
Israel has been the US' most important strategic ally for decades. At a time when the West seemed to be losing the Cold War, Israel's defeats of the Soviet client states, Egypt and Syria, in 1967 and 1973 forced the USSR out of the region, and allowed the US to lock them out with the Egypt-Israel peace treaty. If Israel had lost either of those wars, what other country could have resisted the Soviet's push to the Gulf and control of much or the world's oil supply? Clearly, if not for the Israelis, the US would have had to station large numbers of troops in the ME to stop the Soviet advance, but where would we have made our stand? In Jordan? In Iraq? In Saudi Arabia? And at what cost in American blood and treasure?
Not only has Israel long been our most important strategic ally and our aid to Israel nominal in comparison to what our other important allies cost us, but Israel in the only major US ally for which American soldiers have never had to bleed and die.