History is Obama and Iran agreed to something that Trump 45 repudiated, and the Iranians showed resultant distrust. Not unjustified, but how it happened to where Trump and coalition formed the resolve that Iran could not develop nuclear weapons capability and that based upon distrust that meant the powers in charge wanted all uranium enrichment to stop. Those were the parameters facing Iran, whatever its actual aims were.
Negotiations from that starting point are aptly summarized - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2025_United_States%E2%80%93Iran_negotiations
It can be said the Iranians were jerking the other negotiating side around because they thought they could.
60 % U235 enrichment is not weapons grade yet, but is further centrifugation from weapons grade and when multi-kg of the 60% stuff has been enriched and is being held, wtf is to be concluded?
It is not needed for reactor use for electrification, unless some thorium reacter or other exotic configuration is planned, and the Iranians have not said that. Managed chain reaction in thorium technology does require trigger reactive material, and some more conventional designs might too. Crabgrass is not versed in technological detail, but 60% is above needed levels of enrichment.
Trump said UNCONDITIONAL SURRENDER. After the Israelis had disabled Iran - their pilots were the ones at risk, not the B2 pilots after Israel had disabled Iranian defenses (and whacked a few people they wanted to whack). The risk was the initial incursion and disabling radar and antiaircraft capacity. No matter how much Trump plays "Our noble pilots" as a theme song Israel did the heavy lifting.
There was distrust. There was cause, the Iranians declining in "negotiating" to acknowledge military realities, and playing things out without the demanded compromise - ending any/all enrichment with inspections because trust was lacking.
The West, as a generic term that makes typing easier but is subject to debate, demanded no weapons capability, and hence no further enrichment, none, nada, don't even think it.
Given the parameters, war was limited in time, but necessary to make a point.
Also it is largely irrelevant to debate how effective the B2 uber-bunkerbust thing was. It was done without mishap, and can easily as things now are, be done again, and again, and more so.
Iran has to cave. A few missles at the Qatar U.S. base being a tepid but symbolic counter, for saving face, but not any real threat. Iran is beaten and must accept whatever terms are imposed. Hence, the truth seems that those throwing shade upon how effective or ineffective the B2 strike was, the point is it can be repeated without real risk or consequences, so Iran is pushed into a corner.
Closing the Strait or Hormuz would be Iran cutting off the nose to spite the face, and hence unlikely.
So the stick's been used, now it is time for the carrot. Normalization without capitulation, so that the Iranian people are no longer puched into a degree of suffering that could push them to regime change.
The current regime has been obstreperous, but not reckless. so regime change is a bad idea.
That is about where things seem to stand, if viewed objectively. It is not a guarantee of what happens, but there seems a likelihood of a mutually satisfactory ongoing set of relations without Iran doing any further enrichement of Uranium. End of analysis, correct or not, it is how it seems to be to Crabgrass.