The common theme of western analysts and warhawks is this belief that victory in a war is like playing wack-a-mole: "X amount of military equipment has been destroyed and Y amount of enemy soldiers have been killed, therefore we're winning the war!" There's no sense of broader strategic thinking, they get lost in all these tactical gains they completely forget what they are really trying to achieve. If you destroy military facilities and equipment and kill more troops than they kill you but the government is still in charge and they have the means to punch you back and maintain control of vital areas then I'm sorry you haven't won jack. Everybody knows the US has a larger military force in terms of materiel, spends far more on its armed forces and is a super power so its tactical victories shouldn't be news, on the contrary many of us find it funny that the self proclaimed bestest and most powerfulest military the world has ever seen has to resort to begging for help to open the Strait of Hormuz from a country that has been sanctioned to hell for decades.
It is indeed correct that the requirements and objectives of what is defined as a "victory" is vastly different between Iran and the US/Israel, and so is their respective tolerance for casualties and economic fallout. This of course changes the calculus of the whole conflict for both Iran and Israel/US. This does not change the fact that the heavy tactical advantage that the US and Israel currently enjoy - and will continue to enjoy - eats away at Iran's negotiating power and leverage with each passing day. If Iran's goal is to outlast the conflict and live to see another day, its only way to guarantee that - negotiations - will turn against the regime the longer it continues to get pummeled by the US/Israel.
So are you saying US removed sanctions on Iran and moved carriers out of theater because of potshots? Potshots that shot down F-35 and F-16s and tankers? Potshots that just killed dozens of Israeli nuclear scientists while demonstrating they can destroy Israel's nuclear reactor at any moment? lol
It is interesting to see that you interpret a precautionary move as a sign that the US is somehow backpedalling. Moving a carrier out of range of Iran's missiles, knowing that the US has the full advantage in standoff weaponry, is just basic common sense, no?
Is there evidence that Iran has killed Israeli nuclear scientists?
Are you telling me the US Navy can’t stop Iranian tanker fleet in the Arabian Sea/Indian Ocean today? What happened to Venezuela before the kidnapping of Maduro?
The reason for the takeover of Kharg Island given by the Neocons is so retarded.
Kharg Island is a negotiating tactic, not an action that will directly and proportionately result in a Hormuz Strait resolution.
What exactly did China and Russia announce?
Nothing, because it is fake news. China relies on GCC energy resources more so than it does Iran's.
And each of one of them has been replaced by even more hardline figure that will basically guarantee the country becomes the Middle-East North Korea by the end of the conflict. They are so militarily degraded that they can strike the city where Israel's main nuclear plant is, score the first ever combat hit of a 5th generation fighter jet, and launch two ballistic missiles 4,000 km from their country at a base in the ocean.
Considering that Iran has fired hundreds, if not thousands, of ballistic missiles since the beginning of the conflict and had - on paper - a sizeable military and industrial capacity prior to the war, the fact that there have been relatively few accounts of successful retaliatory strikes is a pretty clear indication that the US and allies have been effectively "curbstomping" the Iranian military while suffering disproportionately few casualties themselves, no?