I am only cautiously optimistic if our operations in Iran do not expand beyond their current targeted scope. (And again, that's ONLY because it's Trump who's in office; I don't think he has the stomach for prolonged conflict, PRECISELY because of how sensitive to public opinion he can be on certain matters.)
Given how things have gone in the Middle East over the past two decades, however, I would not be surprised nor shocked if things continue on as they did with Iraq and Afghanistan.
And for your talk about "the wrong side of history" (as though that's even a thing we mere humans can claim to know; who, other than God Almighty, could be described as the ultimate arbiter of what is right or wrong about historical human events?), we ended up backing Saddam Hussein during the Iran-Iraq War, only to immediately turn around and stomp him down during the Gulf War, and then—little over a decade later—depose him, resulting in a power vacuum that directly led to the rise of ISIS, the deaths of hundreds of thousands from sectarian violence, the depopulation of ancient Christian communities, and the displacement of millions.
Meanwhile, after 20+ years in Afghanistan, the Taliban are back in charge like they were before our first invasion in 2001...albeit with lots of new equipment, courtesy of the United States. And all the while, our aimless interventions resulted in domestic turmoil that helped catapult the likes of Obama and his ilk into power, with all the havoc they wrought in the meantime (and who fueled the racial animosity we're still dealing with to this day).
If you can call that "the right side of history" with a straight face, then by all means, have at it.
(Also, can I just say that describing the foreign policy attitudes of the Founding Fathers as an "isolationist Libertarian wet dream" is rather ironic, given that they had many beliefs and ideas that would make modern-day Libertarians cringe?)
“”(Also, can I just say that describing the foreign policy attitudes of the Founding Fathers as an “isolationist Libertarian wet dream” is rather ironic, given that they had many beliefs and ideas that would make modern-day Libertarians cringe?)””
***
Problem is... I didn’t do that. My comment (see below) did not reference the founders’ attitude. I was talking about the current crop of naysayers who seem to want us to be non-interventionist. The founders were in a different era entirely and had no way of knowing what would become necessary throughout the centuries re: foreign policy. We can be “America First” and still get involved in other nations to protect our national security. In fact, to my mind, that is the very definition (or one) of being America First. Our security comes first, whatever it takes.
As far as that “wrong side in history”... only time will tell. I have my opinion, you have yours. We’ll see, one way or another.
“”Oh, FFS. I’m always amazed at how “certain people” always rush to quote the US Constitution.... while most of the time they conveniently ignore it. America First does not equate to an isolationist Libertarian wet dream, despite how much you’d probably wish it so.””