So... do you understand that
you started the thread?
You made the claim that the bombing targets were "civilian nuclear energy facilities," despite the known fact that 60% enriched uranium is literally a dozen times higher than used in energy generation. Trying to squirm back into putting the onus on other folk just undermines your credibility on the topic even further.
Iran have been pursuing (and have) easily-
weaponizable highly enriched uranium. They may well have had no immediate intention to
actually turn it into a weapon, at least before the attacks, but you just claimed it's a "negotiating chip" and that status wholly depends on its weaponizable rather than civilian nature. Knowing that, it seems your OP claim that the bombing was carried out on "civilian nuclear energy facilities" was more like a straight-up lie than simple ignorance. Civilian nuclear energy facilities don't get built in secret bunkers a hundred meters underground protected by anti-aircraft missile systems.
You need a lesson on the situation, and the way to get it isn't to begin with obnoxious, evidence-free attacks. You also need some good faith approach. I'll say this once and you need a change in tone to get more response. And you will begin with an apology for your lie about a lie.
There is a decades long history to the topic. Iran began its peaceful atomic program in 1953 at the behest of the US. Iran has a real and legitimate need and use for nuclear power.
Over 30 years ago, Ayatollah Khomeini issued a fatwah against getting a nuclear weapon and Iran always said it did not want one and had moral objections to them, and their actions always matched that.
But since the 1990's, interests who want to attack the country - the rogue state and the US - have found that asserting Iran wants and is close to a nuclear weapon as a pretense for attacking the country, with sanctions or militarily, Netanyahu asserting it trying to get the US into war with Iran since the 1990's - have found that useful pretense and lie.
Iran has always co-operated until recently with the international processes - unlike the rogue state, it joined the non-proliferation treaty, it accepted the IAEA and is the most closely inspected country in the world.
As the US sanctioned them over and over over the 'nuclear weapon' issue, Iran called their bluff. That resulted in the Obama agreement, where Iran traded what it already didn't want but the US had weaponized against them, for sanction relief, and everyone agreed they honored the agreement.
Then trump reneged, and left Iran free to do what they want, yet Iran kept complying. Yes, they enriched uranium further - not to weapon level - when it was clear that 'trading away' the weapon they don't want is what gets them leverage in negotiations. They have never lifted the Fatwah against a weapon.
In response, they saw drastic sanctions again, their consulate bombed, their national war hero leader assassinated on a peace mission, constant threats, on an on until the US used subterfuge about wanting 'talks' while setting them up for being bombed. I already cited the IAEA and US intelligence saying Iran was not pursuing a weapon. Now you can apologize or that's it.
Regardless, there's a huge range of possibilities in between the "civilian nuclear energy" usage you falsely claimed in the OP and actually developing nuclear weapons, including the international diplomatic leverage angle you are now pushing: As I said, they may well have had no immediate intention to actually turn their stockpile of easily-weaponizable highly-enriched uranium into a weapon, but since at least the 1980s' US backed aggression and use of WMDs against them by Saddam Hussein they've had excellent practical grounds to want that capability as a deterrent, and on at least one recent occasion (2021) have openly indicated that if pushed they may indeed finalize weapon development.
On the contrary, after further fact-finding the IAEA in 2015 reported that "The Agency assesses that a range of activities relevant to the development of a nuclear explosive device were conducted in Iran prior to the end of 2003 as a coordinated effort, and some activities took place after 2003. The Agency also assesses that these activities did not advance beyond feasibility and scientific studies, and the acquisition of certain relevant technical competences and capabilities. The Agency has no credible indications of activities in Iran relevant to the development of a nuclear explosive device after 2009."