The Truth About Unilateral Actions

All three presidents – Clinton, Obama, Biden – conducted strikes without prior congressional authorization

To be clear from the outset, I didn’t support Trump’s unilateral action of dropping bombs on Iran’s nuclear sites recently. I thought it was premature. Even Bibi Netanyahu stated recently in an answer to Brett Baier that he thought Iran could have a nuclear weapon “within twelve months” (not days nor months).

Now, on to the topic of this post…

I asked Grok AI the following question: “What actions similar to Trump's bombing of the Iranian nuclear sites did Bill Clinton, Barack Obama, and Joe Biden engage in during their presidential administrations?”

Here is Grok’s answer…

To address the query about actions similar to the bombing of Iranian nuclear sites by Presidents Bill Clinton, Barack Obama, and Joe Biden during their administrations, I’ll focus on military actions involving airstrikes or missile strikes against foreign targets, particularly those aimed at neutralizing perceived threats related to weapons of mass destruction (WMDs), terrorism, or strategic military objectives. The bombing of Iranian nuclear sites, as referenced in the context of Donald Trump’s actions in June 2025, involved targeted airstrikes on nuclear facilities (Fordow, Natanz, and Isfahan) to disrupt Iran’s nuclear program, using B-2 stealth bombers and "bunker buster" bombs. Below, I outline comparable military actions by the specified presidents, focusing on airstrikes or missile strikes against strategic targets, particularly in the Middle East or related to WMD concerns, based on available information.

Bill Clinton (1993–2001)

During his presidency, Bill Clinton authorized several military operations involving airstrikes or missile strikes, often targeting facilities or groups associated with terrorism or WMD programs. Key examples include:

• Operation Desert Fox (Iraq, December 1998): Clinton ordered a four-day bombing campaign against Iraq to degrade Saddam Hussein’s capacity to produce weapons of mass destruction and delivery systems. The operation targeted suspected chemical and biological weapons facilities, missile production sites, and military infrastructure. Over 600 sorties were flown, and more than 400 cruise missiles were launched, hitting about 100 targets, including facilities believed to be involved in Iraq’s WMD programs. This action is directly comparable to the bombing of Iranian nuclear sites, as it aimed to neutralize WMD capabilities through airstrikes.

• Operation Infinite Reach (Sudan and Afghanistan, August 1998): Following the U.S. embassy bombings in Kenya and Tanzania, Clinton authorized cruise missile strikes on al-Qaeda training camps in Afghanistan and a pharmaceutical factory in Sudan (Al-Shifa), suspected of producing chemical weapons precursors linked to al-Qaeda. The Sudan strike was controversial, as evidence of chemical weapons production was later questioned, but it was justified at the time as a preemptive action against a WMD-related threat. This is somewhat analogous to targeting nuclear facilities, though the scale and target specificity differ.

• Other Actions: Clinton also launched airstrikes in the Balkans (Bosnia in 1995 and Kosovo in 1999) to address ethnic conflicts and humanitarian crises, and deployed troops to Somalia and Haiti. These operations, while significant, are less directly comparable to the Iranian nuclear site bombings, as they focused on peacekeeping or regime stabilization rather than WMD-specific targets.

Clinton’s actions, particularly Operation Desert Fox, align closely with the query due to their focus on degrading WMD capabilities through targeted airstrikes, similar to the strategic intent of the 2025 Iran strikes.

Barack Obama (2009–2017)

Obama’s presidency saw extensive use of airstrikes and drone strikes, often targeting terrorist networks or supporting allied operations, with some actions relevant to WMD or strategic threats:

• Libya Intervention (2011): Obama authorized U.S. participation in a NATO-led bombing campaign against Muammar Gaddafi’s regime in Libya, enforcing a no-fly zone and targeting military infrastructure to prevent humanitarian atrocities. The operation involved over 10,000 airstrikes, with the U.S. contributing missile strikes and air support. While not directly aimed at WMD facilities, the campaign targeted strategic military assets to weaken a regime perceived as a regional threat, making it somewhat comparable to the Iran strikes in terms of scale and intent to neutralize a threat.

• Syria and Iraq Airstrikes Against ISIS (2014–2017): Obama launched a major air campaign against the Islamic State (ISIS) in Syria and Iraq, with approximately 50,000 bombs dropped across both countries. These strikes targeted terrorist infrastructure, including command centers, training camps, and weapon storage sites. While not specifically WMD-focused, the campaign aimed to dismantle a group with potential access to chemical weapons (ISIS used chlorine and mustard gas in some attacks). The scale and use of precision airstrikes share similarities with the Iran nuclear site bombings.

• Drone Strikes in Multiple Countries: Obama significantly expanded the use of drone strikes in Pakistan, Yemen, Somalia, and elsewhere, targeting al-Qaeda and affiliated groups. These strikes, numbering over 500 in Pakistan alone, focused on high-value terrorist targets but were not directly tied to WMD facilities. They are less directly comparable to the Iran strikes but reflect a pattern of unilateral military action.

• Osama bin Laden Raid (Pakistan, 2011): While not an airstrike, the targeted operation to kill al-Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden involved unilateral military action without host nation consent, similar to the Iran strikes’ lack of congressional approval. It was justified as a national security necessity, akin to the rationale for targeting Iran’s nuclear sites.

Obama’s Libya and ISIS campaigns are the most relevant comparisons, as they involved large-scale airstrikes against strategic targets, though they lacked the specific WMD focus of the Iran strikes.

Joe Biden (2021–2025)

Biden’s military actions were more limited in scope but included airstrikes in the Middle East, some of which targeted groups or facilities linked to Iranian-backed militias or regional threats:

• Airstrikes on Houthi Targets in Yemen (2024–2025): Biden authorized multiple airstrikes against Houthi militia targets in Yemen, focusing on missile and drone storage sites used to attack Red Sea shipping. These strikes, conducted without congressional approval, aimed to neutralize threats from an Iranian-backed group. While not targeting nuclear facilities, the strikes share similarities with the Iran bombings in their focus on degrading strategic capabilities of an Iran-aligned adversary.

• Airstrikes in Syria and Iraq (2021–2024): Biden ordered targeted airstrikes against Iranian-backed militia groups in Syria and Iraq, particularly in response to attacks on U.S. forces. For example, in February 2021, strikes hit militia facilities along the Iraq-Syria border, and in 2023–2024, additional strikes targeted weapons storage and command centers. These actions, while smaller in scale than the Iran nuclear site bombings, involved precision strikes against Iran-linked targets, making them partially comparable.

• No Direct Nuclear Site Strikes: Unlike the 2025 Iran strikes, Biden’s actions did not target nuclear facilities. His administration pursued diplomacy to revive the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) with Iran, though these efforts stalled by 2025.

Biden’s Yemen and Syria/Iraq airstrikes are the closest analogs, as they targeted Iranian-affiliated groups’ strategic assets, but they lacked the direct WMD focus or scale of the Iran nuclear site bombings.

Comparison to Trump’s Iran Strikes

The 2025 U.S. strikes on Iranian nuclear sites (Fordow, Natanz, Isfahan) were a unique escalation, directly targeting a sovereign nation’s nuclear infrastructure with the explicit goal of preventing nuclear weapon development. Key similarities with the actions of Clinton, Obama, and Biden include:

• WMD Focus: Clinton’s Operation Desert Fox is the most direct parallel, as it explicitly targeted Iraq’s WMD capabilities. Obama and Biden’s actions were less focused on WMDs but addressed strategic threats.

• Unilateral Action: All three presidents conducted strikes without prior congressional authorization, a point of contention also raised with Trump’s Iran strikes.

• Middle East Context: Most actions occurred in the Middle East, targeting regimes or groups (Iraq, Libya, ISIS, Houthis) perceived as threats to U.S. interests or allies, particularly Israel.

• Precision Strikes: The use of advanced weaponry (cruise missiles, drones, bunker busters) and air superiority mirrors the tactics used in the 2025 Iran strikes.

Key Differences

• Target Specificity: The 2025 Iran strikes specifically targeted nuclear facilities, a narrower and more sensitive objective than most actions by Clinton, Obama, or Biden, except for Desert Fox.

• Scale and Risk: The Iran strikes risked major escalation with a near-peer adversary, unlike most of the other presidents’ actions, which targeted weaker states or non-state actors (e.g., ISIS, Houthis).

• Diplomatic Context: Clinton, Obama, and Biden often balanced military action with diplomacy (e.g., Obama’s JCPOA), whereas the 2025 strikes followed Trump’s withdrawal from the JCPOA and a shift toward military pressure.

Conclusion

• Bill Clinton: Operation Desert Fox (Iraq, 1998) is the most similar, targeting WMD facilities with large-scale airstrikes. Operation Infinite Reach (Sudan/Afghanistan, 1998) also targeted suspected WMD-related sites but was smaller in scope.

• Barack Obama: The Libya intervention (2011) and ISIS airstrikes (2014–2017) are the closest analogs, involving large-scale airstrikes against strategic targets, though not nuclear facilities.

• Joe Biden: Airstrikes on Houthi targets in Yemen (2024–2025) and Iranian-backed militias in Syria/Iraq (2021–2024) are somewhat comparable, targeting Iran-aligned groups’ strategic assets but not nuclear sites.

These actions reflect a pattern of U.S. presidents using airstrikes to address strategic threats, often without congressional approval, though the 2025 Iran strikes stand out for their direct focus on nuclear infrastructure and potential for escalation. For further details on specific operations, refer to sources like the Council on Foreign Relations or historical records on U.S. military engagements.

So, while I oppose our direct involvement in this regional conflict, it is a ludicrous claim by Trump’s opponents in Congress to say it is an impeachable offense.

Now, Mr. President, get the fuck out of the Middle East! We have enough problems right here in America including tens of millions of illegal aliens in our midst, a looming economic crisis due to massive government spending, and inner city crime and homelessness.

To quote you, Sir, “Thank you for your attention to this matter.”

The Liberator