Yes, citing ill-conceived and or mismanaged attempts while ignoring what has prevented both Soviet and not China hegemony will not achieve a different result than previous failure to justify isolationism.
Thus could you just answer my questions, with specific predictions?
As for your jaundiced view of the past, here is a more objective view as to the effects of past interventions:
Isolationists highlight Vietnam, Contras, Iraq, and Afghanistan as costly failures, but these interventions—despite tactical/political setbacks—contributed to deterring Soviet expansion (not primarily China) by raising costs and buying time for broader Cold War victories.
Vietnam: Political failure, strategic deterrence
U.S. involvement (1955–1975) aimed to block "domino theory" communism spread via Soviet/Chinese aid to North Vietnam; South fell, but no wider SE Asia dominoes—Thailand, Indonesia, Malaysia, India stayed non-communist, partly due to Vietnam's post-war focus on independence over export (even fought China 1979). Political mismanagement (e.g., micromanagement, no-win rules) caused U.S. withdrawal, but 20-year bleed imposed huge costs on Hanoi/Moscow/Beijing, weakening Soviet proxies and enabling Nixon's China pivot.
Reagan's Contras: Rollback success
Contra aid (1981–1989, $19M initial) was Reagan Doctrine core—overt/covert support vs. Soviet-backed Sandinistas in Nicaragua; tied to global anti-communist push (Afghanistan mujahedeen, Angola UNITA). Isolationists call it quagmire, but it pressured Moscow (Nicaragua cost Soviets $billions), contributed to USSR overstretch/collapse by 1991—no hegemony gained.
Iraq/Afghanistan: Post-9/11 threats contained
Post-2001 invasions degraded al-Qaeda/Taliban sanctuaries, prevented major attacks (9/11-scale) for ~20 years; Iraq ousted Saddam (Iran counterweight), disrupted WMD/terror networks. Flaws: Nation-building overreach, Taliban resurgence. But no Soviet angle (post-Cold War); deterred jihadist caliphate, bought time vs. Iran/ISIS—despite costs, isolationism risks safe havens for worse threats.
Isolationists discount Soviet deterrence
They frame as endless wars, ignoring cumulative bleed on USSR: Vietnam/Afghanistan/Contras forced massive Soviet spending (~25% GDP on military), enabling Reagan's arms race win; no global communist hegemony emerged—China split, Eastern Europe freed. Strict isolationism might've let Moscow dominate unchecked (e.g., no Afghan "Soviet Vietnam").- perplexity.ai/
Isolationism? Iran is very little threat to the citizens of this country. To the extent it is, it is only because Biden opened the borders and let Iranian sleeper cells in.
What you're advocating is George W. Bush's neocon policies on steroids. Bush wasn't even crazy to bomb Iran and think that it would result in a Western-friendly government emerging from the ashes.
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/republicans-democrats-say-no-u-s-military-strike-against-iran-trump-mulls-action-poll
Published January 14, 2026
Democrats and Republicans are united in opposing U.S. military strikes against Iran to retaliate for the killing of protesters amid a wave of massive demonstrations against the Iranian government in recent weeks, according to a new national poll.
Seventy percent of voters questioned in a new Quinnipiac University survey said they think the U.S. should not get involved militarily in Iran, with 18% saying the U.S. should take military action.
The vast majority of Independents (80%-11%) and Democrats (79%-7%), as well as a majority of Republicans (53%-35%) said the U.S. should not get involved if protesters in Iran are killed while demonstrating against the regime.