I recently exchanged comments with a fellow Farcebook user. He wanted to justify Trump's bomb-the-bejabbers-out-of-em campaign by drawing historic parallels, and I demurred, both as to applicability and rectitude.. Draw your own conclusions.

Robert C asserted...

Some folks really need a history lesson!

Franklin D. Roosevelt & Harry S. Truman (World War II, 1941–1945): Under Roosevelt and subsequently Truman, the US led massive strategic bombing campaigns in Europe and the Pacific. These campaigns targeted railway networks, bridges, refineries, and factory infrastructure.

Harry S. Truman (Korean War, 1950–1953): The U.S. Air Force carried out an intensive campaign against North Korean infrastructure, including bridges, dams, and industrial factories, to disrupt supply lines.

Lyndon B. Johnson (Vietnam War, 1965–1968): Operation Rolling Thunder, a massive, sustained bombing campaign against North Vietnam, targeted military and industrial infrastructure, including key bridges like the Thanh Hóa Bridge.
Richard Nixon (Vietnam/Cambodia/Laos, 1969–1973): Continued bombing campaigns that targeted infrastructure along the Ho Chi Minh Trail and in Cambodia to disrupt supply routes.
George H.W. Bush (Gulf War, 1990–1991): The U.S.-led coalition targeted Iraq’s military support infrastructure, including command centers, communication facilities, and power grids, often using precision-guided weapons.
Bill Clinton (Bosnia/Kosovo, 1995–1999): NATO-led bombing campaigns targeted infrastructure in Yugoslavia, including bridges, industrial plants, and oil facilities, often without formal congressional declarations of war.
George W. Bush (Iraq War/Afghanistan, 2001-2009): The 2003 "Shock and Awe" campaign in Iraq destroyed substantial civilian and military infrastructure, including electricity networks and government bridges.
Barack Obama (Libya/Syria/Yemen, 2009–2017): Oversaw NATO airstrikes in Libya that hit regime-controlled infrastructure, and used drone strikes on infrastructure targets in Yemen and Syria, often acting without new congressional approval.
Donald Trump (Syria/Iran Threats, 2017-2021/2026): Continued bombing in Yemen and Syria and, in April 2026, made public threats to destroy Iran’s electrical grid and transportation bridges, a policy referred to as "bridge and power day".
Joe Biden (Syria/Iraq, 2021–Present): Authorized airstrikes against targets in Iraq and Syria, targeting militia infrastructure.

Wikipedia

These actions frequently spanned multiple administrations, with the United States engaging in airstrikes in over 30 countries since 1945.

And I replied...

Robert, there are several obvious difference between the present and past wars.

* During WWII military operations in all theaters were against countries that had previously launched comparable campaigns agains vital US interests including those in US territory. (Pearl Harbor comes to mind.) Neither Iran's religious antipathy toward a third party nor the actions of its surrogates rises to the same level of threat to the USA.

* The Cold War was a clear and unambiguous threat, but the US chose instead to put us on the wrong side of history by supporting the return of French colonial forces to Vietnam, leading to a ten-year war and a major US defeat in which thousands of Americans and perhaps millions of Vietnamese died. Hardly glorious.(See earlier exchange in this thread regarding Wm. Calley.)

* The Bush clan's adventures in the Persian Gulf had little to do with US security but a lot to do with the fortunes of oil interests in the USA and abroad, including those of the Bushes themselves.

* Obama did for sure strike in Syria and Yemen under the cloak of the "War Powers Act" left over from the Bush era. The Syria incursions were quite clearly related to assaults on US forces and on international shipping in the Red Sea and were supported by the UN (see UN Security Council approved Resolution 1973 ), NATO (NATO allies like the UK and France strongly supported the operation and flew many of the combat missions) and other nations. As for Yemen, human rights groups and some UN investigators criticized the US program for lack of transparency, civilian casualties, and possible violations of international law, urging clearer legal justification and accountability mechanisms. At the same time, Obama’s 2013–2014 speeches tightening rules for drone use and acknowledging civilian risks were cautiously welcomed by Pakistan, Yemen, and a UN special rapporteur as steps toward more constrained and transparent use of force. Overall, a mixed bag.

* The first Trump administration, despite campaign statements critical of Obama, largely continued the policies of the Obama era directed at Syria and Yemen.

* The Biden administration responded to Iran-directed attacks on US forces in Syria and Iraq.

In summary, virtually all other administrations you mentioned were acting DEFENSIVELY to actual threats and/or attacks and were fully or partially supported by allies and others. One cannot rationally apply those actions as a road map to future US foreign policy.

In contrast, the present warfare in the Persian Gulf is OFFENSIVE (in every sense of the word). It is rather obviously, as reflected in public statements by the administration, addressing fear of a theoretical future threat that would surely result in obliteration of the attacker, based on the unlikely choice of a foreign government to commit national suicide. And oh by the way, have you noticed few people are mentioning the Epstein affair this month? The vulgarity and hyper-machismo of Trump & Hegspeth is a national embarrassment adding insult to injury.

[BTW, none of the statements herein is sourced from Wikipedia, which is an autodidactic (look it up) source in which many articles written by amateurs contain errors of fact and reason.]

Bottom line: Two wrongs still don't make a right, and no number of paeans to past violence can turn the present tragedy into poetry.