We are on a military forum. I thought the significance of Suleimani to IRGC and its foreign proxies in the middle east is apparent and self evident to people interested in geopolitics and military. A simple google search would provide plenty of evidences describing the importance of Suleimani played in Lebanon, Syrian civil war and Iraq.
So at best, they got even (killed Suleimani after he already inflicted massive damage) but then Iran still responded with missiles and they still failed to respond afterwards even though they could have used as a casus belli to escalate.
What a loaded and idiotic question.
From US perspective, Suleimani was a highly effective operator who would've continue to cause great damage to US interests in ME as long as he was alive.
In 1950 the US thought the same in Korea, 1962 India thought the same as well. Salami slicing works until it draws an overwhelming and irreversible response that changes the entire balance of power.
It's not wise to compare the political resolve and control of Mao and Deng with Jiang, Hu or Xi. Great leaders like Mao and Deng were never shy about military solutions since they themselves rose through the "baptism of fire" in sino-Japanese war and the civil war. Mao chose to intervene in Korea in 1950 when PRC had just been established. He didn't put so much emphasis on developments or biding for the appropriate time. Mao acted when it's needed.
You think it's about great individual men but I don't. Mao couldn't have made that decision on a whim as an individual because if it was a gamble and he lost, it could've ended PRC right then and there. I mean, actively attacking a country that just steamrolled Japan easily (same Japan that shattered KMT elite forces and occupied parts of China for almost 10 years) and had 40% of world GDP is not a decision to be made lightly. Even PLA beating KMT forces - similarly to Japan - doesn't give them confidence in and of itself.
The red line for a war is Taiwan's declaration of independence, other so called "red lines breach" are just breach of earlier agreement between China and others on One China policy which are not serious enough to go for war.
Throughout the Chinese long history, it has always been a tale of great individuals whether the person is a competent emperor, an inspiring revolutionary or a daring reformer. Without the efforts and leadership of great individuals like Sun, Mao, Deng especially in last 150 years, Chinese civilization couldn't have survived intact without breaking further apart. Instead it has managed to throw off the shackle of colonialism, reunite some of its lost pieces and strive for greater achievements.
There are no guarantees but Mao wasn't stupid enough to invade Taiwan when China didn‘t have the military capability to do so back then. At least China is in a much better position now.