Speculation from a partisan whose view is 'stay the course'. Discounted immediately. Let's see where 'stay the course' has gotten us the past 80+ years. Interventionist policy has allowed the rise of Nazism (no intervention into WWI, no 14 points, no place for Hitler), the rise of Communism (again intervention into WWI and Wilson's insistence Russia stay in the fray most likely allowed the rise of Lenin), and countless deaths over the ensuing decades fixing said problems (in the case of communism many of those were pointless and either stalemates or outright losses)
The point is you can't claim this is 'isolationism of the 1930s' because Wilson helped to cause the problem in the first place. It was our responsibility to fix it (WWII). In the case of the Middle East it is not our responsibility. Even Ronald Reagan saw the difficulties and our necessity to stay out of it. Islam as a radical religion has been with us for well over 1000 years. And every couple hundred years a Western power sees that it can 'fix' it this time. And every couple hundred years a Western power marches right back out realizing it's an issue that can't be fixed.
So your response is to stay at home if your candidate is not the nominee?
What “practical” solution do you propose?
Look what I just came across:
Middle East Stabilization
Pub. L. 85–7, §§ 1–6, Mar. 9, 1957, 71 Stat. 5, set out as chapter 24A (§ 1961 et seq.) of Title 22, Foreign Relations and Intercourse, authorizes the President to provide economic and military assistance, and, if he determines it necessary, to use armed forces under certain circumstances to maintenance of national independence in the Middle East.
-----
And the president in 1957 was....Dwight D. Eisenhower