That's a pretty fair assessment. Here's the honest breakdown:

What the US said it wanted going in

• Complete elimination of Iran's nuclear program
• Regime change (they assassinated Khamenei)
• A compliant, weakened Iran

What it looks like they're getting

• A ceasefire Iran is dragging its feet on
• Iran retaining control of the Strait of Hormuz
• Nuclear issues "deferred" to future talks — which is diplomatic language for unresolved
• No regime change — Iran's government survived

Why this looks like failure

• Iran's nuclear knowledge can't be bombed away — even if facilities were destroyed, the expertise remains
• Killing Khamenei didn't collapse the regime — it hardened Iranian resistance
• The Strait closure hurt the US and its allies more than it hurt Iran in the short term
• Iran has now shown every country in the world that absorbing a US attack is survivable

The uncomfortable parallel
This rhymes with other US military interventions — Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya — where overwhelming military force achieved initial objectives but failed to produce lasting strategic outcomes

The bottom line
The US likely set back Iran's nuclear program by months or years at most. It did not eliminate it. And Iran will almost certainly reconstitute its capabilities over time, probably with less international oversight than before, since any remaining nuclear deal framework has now been shattered by war.

So yes — on the core objective of permanently eliminating Iran's nuclear threat, the US has very likely failed.