First of all, it seems established from your answer that no American soldier has died after the assassination of Gen. Soleimani, not even in the following rocket attacks by the Iranian-backed militias in Iraq. That's pathetic and quite embarrassing, particularly because the US is overstaying their welcome in Iraq after the Iraqi parliament asked them to leave.
The question was how Iran's geostrategic standing vis a vis the US is supposed to have degraded after Hajj Qasem's martyrdom. Not to debate how worthy the Iranian response has been.
Fact is and remains that this episode did not affect Iran's position on the ground. It's only effect was in the psy-ops realm, which was not translated into any concrete material gains for the US regime (the Supreme Leader shedding tears or PDF users being upset is not a concrete material gain at the geostrategic level).
In case you feel that killing over 600+ US soldiers from 2003 to 2011 is a huge achievement, I have to remind you that the US is responsible for the deaths of over 300,000 Iranian soldiers and civilians during the Iraq war, including tens of thousands of deaths due to the widespread use of chemical weapons, fully backed by the US, even publicly through their vetoes of UNSC resolutions about Iraqi use of chemical weapons. So, killing 600+ US soldiers and thinking that it's an achievement compared to what the US has done to Iran is quite ridiculous. Even in that regard, it's still 300K+ vs 600+ for the US. And I am using official statistics only, some unofficial stats claim that over 500,000 Iranians were killed in the 8 years of the Iraq-Iran war and the US is a main culprit there.
I've consistently underscored that kill ratio comparisons are irrelevant in war. Conflicts are never fought to kill more than the opponent, but to reach predefined political goals (e.g. Soviet versus German casualties in WW2, Vietnamese versus American casualties during the Vietnam war etc).
So my point wasn't to speculate as to how much of an achievement it was compared to what the US obtained - achievement which is never measured in terms of casualty figures anyway, but in terms of concrete geopolitical indicators and realities
weighed against previously set political objectives. Iran's support for Iraqi Resistance groups curtailed the US-zionist neocon program for a "New Middle East" more than American backing of Saddam achieved to fulfill its goals i.e. to topple the Islamic Republic and to bring the Revolution to a definitive halt.
The point was to show that US nuclear weapons could not deter Iran from waging this form of indirect warfare on the US military, whose impact on the ground surpassed the geostrategic effects of Hajj Qasem's assassination by far.
Your straw man fallacy is quite apparent.
I provided a detailed break down of the relevant discussion segment. There isn't any straw man fallacy.
I said that Iran needs megatonne nukes for deterrence and you said that Iran was doing fine without them and we don't need them and went on about how Iran is this and that. Then I told you that the situation is nowhere as good as you pretend it is because they have killed several top Iranian commanders with complete immunity from our retaliation and our economy is bleeding from their unilateral sanctions.
Now you are referring to the entire discussion from the very start, rather than to the specific part under consideration.
But to address the above nonetheless,
1) Despite Iranian megaton nukes, they likely would have carried out these assassinations all the same. Nuclear weapons do not deter against any and all use of force. They have even failed at systematically averting full fledged conventional conflict as in the Falklands in 1982, and this ranks higher in the level, intensity and scope of violence than the mere assassination of a general.
2) If armed with megaton nukes, Iran would have been sanctioned all the same. Even in the absence of a civilian nuclear program, they would have sanctioned Islamic Iran.
At any rate, this isn't what matters most. Relevant is chiefly the outcome in concrete geopolitical terms, viewed through the prism of the stated and/or implicit political objectives meant to be served by means of the military instrument. In this regard, the US regime has quite utterly failed at causing any strategic setback for Iran with its sanctions and isolated terrorist operations.
You somehow attempted in futile to turn this about the aftermath of the assassination of Gen. Soleimani. All of my points nevertheless remain valid. The US feels immune against Iran's retaliation while they are bleeding Iran at any opportunity they find.
It isn't relevant. Not only did Hajj Qassem's martyrdom fall short of affecting Iran's geostrategic position in a negative way, but said position has experienced further improvement since then. US think tank analysts have no problems admitting it (as in the previously shared video clip).
Due to Iran's effective power of deterrence, the US regime is feeling highly vulnerable
to what it would actually take to achieve their strategic aims towards Iran - and assassinations or sabotage most definitely do
not fall under that category, and never will.
