It can be and is controlled. It's not that easy to use the civilian reactor to get a bomb, otherwise Iran would already have it long time ago.

I'm fine with it. There is some concern about them building plants that can create bomb grade material as a byproduct, but we can verify they don't build that into their plants.

No, it's impractical to use civilian reactors for generating materials for a nuclear bomb (I don't count "dirty" bombs as nuclear). Also usually spent fuel rods are returned to the country of production.

Certain kinds of civilian reactors produce plutonium with large amounts of higher isotopes, but (1) it's still possible to use that stuff in bombs, with boosting, and (2) other reactor type produce plutonium that's better than weapons grade (for example, fast breeders with a breeding blanket region around the core; the Pu from that blanket is almost entirely 239Pu, and remember that scaling nuclear to supply world energy demand will likely require breeding.)

France seems to be a pretty solid argument there’s little here to cause concern. China too.

I'm not sure what your point is, because both those countries have nuclear weapons?

No, because their abundant use of nuclear power, including fast breeders, has not contributed to nuclear proliferation.

France's fast breeders have been failures, and they recently cancelled their next iteration trying to make them work. China doesn't have any fast breeders beyond research work, as far as I know.

It may be that sodium cooled fast breeders had a fundamental materials flaw that was not recognized soon enough.

https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11665-010-9763-5

Thanks for that. Even if those jurisdictions are not using fast breeder technology, I think they're still pretty good evidence that nuclear proliferation is low risk.

Absolutely. Building nuclear power plants is quite different from pursuing nuclear weapons.

30 some nations use nuclear power, or are building nuclear plants. Only nine countries have nuclear weapons.

Pursuing nuclear weapons is obviously a choice, it's not automatic with nuclear power. It requires an immense, concerted effort to build nuclear weapons.

The US has begrudgingly learned to live with North Korea and Pakistan having nuclear weapons, it'll learn to live with Iran having nuclear weapons as well (and shortly after that, Saudi Arabia). Will Israel accept that outcome? I guess we'll find out, there is no scenario where Iran doesn't acquire nuclear weapons at this point. It's guaranteed.

Well, Iran is ready to return to the previous agreement, if the US will upheld its part of the deal, without any additional talks or introducing new pre-conditions. Well, it also asks to compensate damage from the US sanctions, but I think it's simply a way to improve its negotiation position.

It's Trump who did messed everything up, not Iran. Unfortunately it does not look like the Biden administration is eager to fix it.

Iran isn't playing squarely with the current US administration. They don't want to go back to the old agreement straight up, they want cake with icing and sprinkles and Biden has been around long enough that kissing their hineys is not a smart way to go about resuming the agreement. Everyone knows that Trump is most likely an anomaly in international politics and will fade into history (it may take a few years of course) as such.

"I assume that everyone advocating new nuclear in America is also happy for Iran to build a line of new nuclear plants?"

Yip. a) because 3.67% enriched Uranium fuel is not a weapon and will never be b) civilian nuclear energy is part of the multi-national JPCOA deal that they kept their side of c) its really not your call to tell other sovereign people what energy to use d) you should be happy they are using less coal.