Donald Trump wants to be treated as a uniquely brave and patriotic president because of his decision to order a deadly U.S. strike against Iranian commander Qassem Soleimani on Friday.

Soleimani should have been taken out many years ago! Trump wrote on Twitter . Had that happened, a lot of lives would have been saved, he later said during a press conference at his resort in Florida.

The same day, his reelection campaign released a video focused on the Trump administrations killing of Islamic State leader Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi in October not explicitly referencing Soleimani or Iran, but sending a clear signal with its timing and its title: A Message to Bloodthirsty Savages Around the World.

But American presidents and close American allies have repeatedly had the chance to assassinate Soleimani before. They have chosen not to. With Iran promising revenge and the U.S. escalating further in the form of big troop deployments, what Trump may ultimately be remembered for is initiating a costly and bloody crisis.

The reason this has not been done in the past is because of the profoundly escalatory nature of this action, Ilan Goldenberg, a former Pentagon and State Department official now with the Center for a New American Security, told HuffPost via email. U.S. assets and personnel across the region will now be exposed to potential Iranian retaliation. And more so, we are very hesitant to assassinate high-ranking officials of other governments for fear they will retaliate by targeting our officials.

Soleimani ran an arm of the Iranian military responsible for operations beyond Irans borders, known as the Quds Force, for 21 years. That position put him in frequent conflict with the U.S. and its partners as he funneled support to his friends across the neighborhood: in Lebanon and Palestine, to combat Israel; in Iraq, to ensure Iranian influence there after the U.S. invasion of 2003, with methods that included vicious attacks on Americans; and most recently in Syria, to shore up dictator Bashar Assad. His reach extended to Yemen and to Pakistan, to trips to Moscow and plots in Europe. And in certain circumstances, Soleimani was even useful to the U.S. , most notably by helping lead Iraqi forces that fought ISIS with American aerial assistance.

At various points throughout his travels, Soleimani was vulnerable.

In January 2007, then-Joint Special Operations Command chief Stanley McChrystal watched a convoy that he knew contained the Iranian commander cross from Iran whose airspace the U.S. wouldnt be welcome in into Iraq, where McChrystals forces were able to operate. There was good reason to strike, the retired general recently wrote for Foreign Policy magazine, citing Soleimanis responsibility for the deaths of American soldiers. To avoid a firefight, and the contentious politics that would follow, he decided not to.

The decision not to act is often the hardest one to make and it isnt always right, the retired general wrote at the beginning of his piece. He didnt, however, say it would have been right to kill Soleimani.

A little over a year later, in 2008, Israeli operatives working with the U.S. to track a Soleimani associate informed the highest rungs of their government they had spotted the Iranian and were prepared to strike him. Then-Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert vetoed the idea, New York Times reporter Ronen Bergman later revealed . He had promised the U.S. any operation would only hit Soleimanis contact, the Lebanese militant Imad Mugniyah. The risk of taking down Soleimani was clear to decision-makers in both Washington and Jerusalem.

The United Kingdom, Americas closest ally, made a similar call in the same era. British special forces were preparing to assassinate Soleimani, but the countrys foreign minister, David Miliband, called off the operation to preserve the option of diplomacy with Iran, The Telegraph reported in an obituary for the Iranian commander. (A representative for Miliband did not respond to a request for comment.)

And as recently as 2015, once the U.S. became seriously engaged in the fight against ISIS and Soleimani began publicly appearing on battlefields in Iraq and Syria, American officials publicly discussed the option of killing him.

If we were conducting air operations, would somebody like Qassem Soleimani be a target? then-Rep. Ron DeSantis (R-Fla.), now the governor of Florida, asked during a 2015 hearing held by the House Foreign Affairs Committee.

We dont, at this time, intend to target him, replied retired Gen. John Allen, the Obama administrations counter-ISIS czar.

Asked why, he offered an explanation that resonates today.

Were in this to assist the Iraqi government in dealing with [ISIS], Allen said. Thats the reason that were there, not to go to war with Iran. I think its very important for us to keep that in mind. Ill just leave it there.

Again and again, well-informed Americans and U.S.-aligned governments assessed that the choice to assassinate Soleimani would cause a major and indisputably violent escalation that wouldnt be worth the potential gains from removing him.