I dont disagree that the 60% was a deterrent, it was a deterrant. what im saying is you dont invade over deterrent level uranium. you sanction, pressure, negotiate, etc. and if it doesnt work they're left a starving nation with a deterrant. this is the long game but it was working, with the help of CIA stoking the protests and letting internal pressure build. but unlike ukraine we didnt fund and let an internal protest topple the govt, we just used their existence as a pretense for war.
the thing missing from your viewpoint is that regime change doesnt work. its not a question of if the replacement is better or worse, it a question of if it is viable. and it hasnt proved to be. not in iraq, not in afghanistan, not in syria, not in lebanon, not anywhere. we've never once done a successful regime change. we'll blow up the country, kill many US soldiers, spend trillions rebuilding, prop up a local govt, and it will be toppled as soon as we try and pull out. or we spend endlessly to stay, which is almost as bad. but it wont last, we'll get tired of it just like in iraq, and some potus will get elected on the promise of pulling out. they will, the local govt will be toppled, and extremists will fill the vacuum.
We tried to sanction and negotiate and pressure. For decades. Iran has been hostile to all Western democracies since 1979 and they've only gotten moreso. They can not be allowed to acquire nuclear weapons.
Your suggestion is shortsighted, we just starve them to death while leaving them capable of very quickly gaining the nuclear option? That's insane. It's only a deterrent until they decided to push it to weapons grade and then it's a threat.
The idea that we've never done a successful regime change is just a lie. Lol we've already achieved it successfully once in Iran... As I said, the threat is that the replacement will lead to something worse. A threat that I don't think is credible in this case.