The nuclear devices that no plausible report indicated were remotely imminent? The delivery vehicles with the range to reach the US that they don't possess?

Until we moved forces into range to carry out this action, the only US assets Iran could target with the delivery systems they actually have* might have been some bases in the Middle East and southeastern Europe. That's nothing they were at all likely to have been considering: there is zero material benefit for them to be doing that and countless downsides. It took our strikes for them to have reason to re-assess the cost/benefit ratio (and not surprisingly, attacking the reachable-assets of an enemy already attacking them made sense in those calculations, particularly given the enormous gulf in financial cost on either side).

Look, I don't disagree that Iran's radical Islamist regime is a blight on humanity. It has been worthwhile to stymie their progress towards nuclear weapons, including not just massive surveillance but even military action if they actually have warhead production genuinely imminent. It's worth penalizing them for attacking their own citizens to suppress dissent. It's worth levying sanctions in response to their ongoing misogyny, lethal homophobia, and other regressive policies. But I think an overwhelming argument can be made that a massively-disruptive unilateral military action, taken w/o consultation with allies and triggering multiple dreadful consequences for the world, was not justified by the state of affairs that prevailed prior to our attack. History will view this as one of the United States' biggest foreign policy blunders ever.



* and the conventional warheads they actually have, too...