To follow my own advice, in order to clarify my own stance:
I accept the timeline of multiple claims for the past decade and a half that Iran is "close" or at least "too close for comfort." As opposed to the theory that this is BS for the sake of nothing more than regime change, I believe that timeline is better explained by other events, namely, Israel's repeated intervention, including events I named above. I'd also note that the two things aren't mutually exclusive. Israel could have regime change as a goal and be thwarting Iran's nuclear efforts when they are legitimately too close.
I don't want to put words in utee94's mouth, but it seems like his position is a more modest one than mine. I don't see him claiming anything about previous claims that Iran was too close. He seems to be saying previous claims are irrelevant to the fact that Iran is enriching uranium beyond the point of usefulness for anything other than nuclear weapons, and wants an explanation as to why that's occurring, if it's not weapons-related. Logically, this is valid. Whatever we believe about intel claims about Iran in the past can certainly have weight on our opinion about current claims, but does not have logical bearing on the truth of a current claim.
I think I understand your point, which is, effectively, we've seen this movie before and it's always a nothing-burger. I'm trying to note that, pending the veracity of certain reports, nothing-burgers were the result of actions, not the initial state of affairs.
YMMV. I'm just trying to civilly state my stance and make sure I'm understanding yours.
