No. There is a religious fatwa from the highest authority in Iran against it. If Iran wanted to develop nuclear weapons it would have done so by now.
When Saddam's Iraq used Western-supplied chemical weapons against hundreds of thousands of Iranians in his invasion, Iran did not retaliate with chemical weapons.
You and they can believe what you want. Iran has not enriched uranium to 90%. Unlike other states in the region, Iran is a signatory to the NPT and has a legal right to enrich uranium.
Iran appears to want to be a nuclear-capable state, on the cusp of weaponisation at very short-notice. It lacks the political will to make that final step (due to terrorist traitors exposing its secret nuclear weapons program in 2002 meaning that Iran's case was referred to the UNSC). Since then Iran has been under the watchful eye of the international community and trying to close the UNSC file.
Indeed. The US remains open to returning to the JCPOA, recently stating that the deal the parties negotiated (that Iran walked away from) is still open.
Unsubstantiated conjecture. If there was ever a time to strike Iran, it would have been in the decades before Iran invested so heavily in its AD network and built several nuclear facilities spread across the entire country, several buried deep under mountains and thus beyond reach for Israel.
This is not logical. They have tried to conduct sabotage and other terrorist operations in Iran for decades, sometimes successfully in the short-term. None of them have a lasting impact and each one is counterproductive as they just Iran taking further steps to progress its nuclear program (e.g. legitimately enriching uranium to 60% after the Zionists extrajudicially assassinated Fakhirzadeh in an act of terrorism, which was previously a red-line for the West).
There is doubt because of the incredible deterrence and military power Iran has managed to accumulate, as evidenced by Israel's reticence to strike Iran until this point. I agree Israel has factored in Iran's response and the consequences of such an illegal act of aggression, hence why it has refrained from doing so (that's called deterrence).
Israel can probably heavily damage Natanz but it cannot destroy Fordow (or the massive new enrichment facilities being built deep underground at Natanz), it lacks the weapons needed to do so. By contrast, Iran can very easily destroy Israel's sole major nuclear facility (Dimona) with only 20 Emad ballistic missiles (even assuming a 20% failure rate and 90% interception rate) and then use the strike to legitimately withdraw from the NPT and enrich to 90% at Fordow. Therefore, unless Iran makes a sudden, clear rush to weaponisation, it is not logical for Israel to strike. Even then, the limitations of their options and costs they would incur would weigh heavily against such a decision.
