> That just seems to be saying 'don't get invaded, sucker' which, while sound advice doesn't actually work out if someone's intent on invading you.

Israel and USA have been intent on invading Iran for decades. But they didn't. Then suddenly they did. That didn't just happen randomly. Iran took a bunch of foreign policy risks that backfired spectacularly making them vulnerable to invasion. If they made different decisions, or if they just got luckier, they wouldn't have been in a vulnerable position and this wouldn't have happened.

In many ways, the art of war starts long before the battles start. The things Iran could have done differently to affect the outcome of this war would probably have to have been done back then. It is a bit too late for them now.

> The Iranians are not trying to 'win' as such, but rather impose enough cost on the attackers that continuing the war no longer makes sense for them.

Yes, that is how all wars where the sides aren't evenly matched work.

But all they have to show for it is slightly higher prices at the pump, and its unclear they will even be able to maintain that going forward. It isn't looking good for them.

> The truth is, you're not seemingly saying much of anything besides 'Iran bad'.

I'm just saying they are losing and don't seem to have good prospects going forward. If by bad, you mean in the sense of their strategic position - then yes, iran's strategic position is very bad.

> Israel and USA have been intent on invading Iran for decades. But they didn't. Then suddenly they did.

There is a war between the US/Israel and Iran, but there has not been an invasion. Attacks from a distance are not invasions. Contrast with the Russia-Ukraine war, where there actually has been an invasion.