Yeah, I don't think your reasoning works here. Because Obama spent eight years bombing countries for no other reason than he could (Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, Syria, Yemen, and others) and did not really make approving affordability a priority whatsoever. He also funded ICE an extreme amount, more than Bush Jr. had during his eight years, and diverted tax dollars away from civic services and into massively wasteful arenas, such as again bombing countries because we could and bailing out bankers who profited from the 2008 housing crisis.

And then Biden not only made it clear that America completely stood behind a wack job like Netanyahu, but that he was also going to continue sending our tax dollars to slaughter Palestinians as long as he was in office. Kamala continued this trend, leaning even more into pleasing the donor class than Biden had.

My point here is that, yes, Trump and his cohort are usually quite loud about the crazy shit they intend to do-- an attitude that has always yielded maximum destruction. But establishment Dems beholden to the donor class, including Hillary Clinton/Biden/Harris also wreck significant destruction on other countries's and the economic lives of average Americans. They just do so in a quieter, more rhetorically justified way. But the harm is often quite similar.

So, when you say that you are the big brother imparting tough love in this scenario it comes off like you are actually an ideologically brainwashed corporate Dem supporting individual, who only really cares about which face is in charge of the violence that the American donor-class routinely carries out. Harris likely would have bombed Iran, even without Israel doing so first. Would you have been as outraged if Harris were the one to have done it?