Regularly shooting ballistic missiles at allied nations isn't an imminent threat? And I don't see how "existing agreements" make a difference if those existing

Regularly shooting ballistic missiles at allied nations isn't an imminent threat? And I don't see how "existing agreements" make a difference if those existing agreements allow them to build nukes. If Iran stopped building nukes and stopped threatening their neighbors the US would have no reason to intervene. (Other the usual reason of Iran's human rights abuses of course, but historically the US generally lets those slide as long as the country isn't threatening to impose those abuses on its neighbors.)