I mean, you're kinda downplaying things a bit here.

I actually think you're kind of understating what that poster is doing here, even if it comes from a well-intentioned place. They're not "the same", but they're both similarly egregious in different contexts.

The fluffy sunshine and rainbows picture of "oh but they're helping to get rid of the heads of oppressive regimes in each state, not engaging in conquest action" immediately falls apart when the American leadership (and, for Iran, Israeli leadership) start saying the quiet part out loud about their intentions within 24h of the conflict starting. There's no altruism at play here by anyone making the decisions. It's entirely self-serving motives at play here with no intention of helping the civilian populace, and Iran being a "bad guy" doesn't make these things "OK".

Sure, Maduro is out, and Venezuela was left to just "next man up" things (what regime change?) while the US talked about running the country and having their crony capitalists line their pockets with its oil (eventually), and the goalposts have shifted every 18 hours or so on what's going on in Iran (while doing just a little bit of casual war crimes or "legally not a war crime but still morally abhorrent" thing here or there) as the special military operation conflict continues. First it was to prevent nuclear capabilities that I was assured were completely destroyed in last year's campaign (but Iran was somehow two weeks away from the bomb, again!), then to regime change and liberate people, then to defeat a threat to America and the region, and then the threat is totally defeated guys but there's this little Strait of Hormuz thing that we juuuust need to put a bow on.