I disagree. That energy you quote for NaCl assumes the two ions are pulled apart in vacuum. If we then move the respective ion into water, there is a favourable solvation free energy. So the free energy of the final state of separated NaCl in aqueous solution is different than had it been done in vacuum. Any intermediate state stabilization, that only alters the kinetics, is not relevant.

The O2 example is, I admit, a bit different in the details. But in vacuum, if I do a homolytic cleavage of the covalent bond in O2, the two radical oxygen atoms of the final state are far from stable. So any other reactant that can combine with the two oxygen atoms make that final state stabler. The tricker part is that the path from start to finish include at least one transition state. In biology and chemistry, we can alter the kinetics of this cleavage, while leaving the final state the same, by adjusting any catalytic component. That is a more subtle point. My argument is much simpler. In vacuum, O2 is a strong bond because the final state after dissociation is unstable, while in the example system, O2 separates more readily mostly because the dissociation does not generate two free radical atoms, but one where the atomic oxygen binds to iron.

Hence, the strength of a bond must either be defined with a common reference state (vacuum typically as I mention), but then bond strength is a more abstract quantity and less informative of practical questions of stability, robustness etc, or we consider the problem in full, i.e. the stability of initial and final states are part of the analysis.