As of March 2025, the US intelligence had assessed that Iran was neither building nor pursuing a nuclear a weapon. [1] Claims to the contrary can from Netanyahu who is increasingly obviously an unstable individual. Notably the 'flip flop' when Trump decided to invade Iran was precipitated on very careful language that Iran could have a weapon if they chose to pursue it, under a likely exaggerated timeline. It's not really a flip flop as both statements can be, and probably were, true.
So why was Iran so close to a nuclear weapon in the first place? What happened is that after years of enriching at a normal level Iran suffered yet another attack from the US/Israel in 2021 that caused significant damage to their nuclear facilities. [2] Following this they increased enrichment to 60%, which is just below weapons grade, to make a point that they were entirely capable of making a nuclear weapon, but had made a conscious decision not to.
Following the latest US/Israel attacks on them, I think it's fairly certain that they will develop a nuke, if not only because it's increasingly obviously the only way they can stop the endless US/Israel attacks. Ultimately, you're not going to be able to stop a country full of brilliant individuals from building a nuke if they want it. It seems likely that Iran was negotiating in good faith, and then we literally launched an invasion on them mid-negotiation. What's the point of negotiating?
And then they got new intel. Iran is also the primary sponsor of international terrorism, and the entire EU is aligned on sanctioning Iran. I know history of western intervention in the Middle East is full of terrible mistakes, but that doesn't mean we should turn the other cheek. I'd argue we've been to lenient on that front, in many ways.
I don't want us directly interfering in the Middle East, but I also don't want us supporting regimes that are diametrically opposed to our own ways of life. And sanctions are the way to do this.
The reason the US acts the way it does in the US is not based on any immediate logic. There's a great paper, "Rebuilding America's Defenses" that describes US foreign policy in extremely straight forward language. It was written during Bush's era, but many of the people with their names on it are part of the effectively permanent political establishment.
Their goal was (and perhaps if they're delusional - still is) to maintain hegemonic control over the entire world. The main motivation for things like attacking Iran is 'projecting force.' It's supposed to work to intimidate other countries into deference and compliance without having to actually get involved in a battle with them. Basically mimicking how school bullies work.
So you're looking for a reasonable explanation based on superficial pretexts, but there is none. The same is true of Iraq. It's not like we really thought there were WMD. But it was simply an opportunity to project power and keep the military industrial complex churning.
So why was Iran so close to a nuclear weapon in the first place? What happened is that after years of enriching at a normal level Iran suffered yet another attack from the US/Israel in 2021 that caused significant damage to their nuclear facilities. [2] Following this they increased enrichment to 60%, which is just below weapons grade, to make a point that they were entirely capable of making a nuclear weapon, but had made a conscious decision not to.
Following the latest US/Israel attacks on them, I think it's fairly certain that they will develop a nuke, if not only because it's increasingly obviously the only way they can stop the endless US/Israel attacks. Ultimately, you're not going to be able to stop a country full of brilliant individuals from building a nuke if they want it. It seems likely that Iran was negotiating in good faith, and then we literally launched an invasion on them mid-negotiation. What's the point of negotiating?
[1] - https://www.newsweek.com/tulsi-gabbard-iran-nuclear-weapon-2...
[2] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2021_Natanz_incident