The overall picture is simple, the answer would be much more nuanced.
We should not be in the business of supporting one government or another; we should be in the business of making our government a good model of government. Let the people of other nations choose what they want. Look at what's happening in Egypt; look at what happened in Palestine. Those people need to decide on their
own what they will tolerate.
Iran's long-standing hatred of the west starts much earlier than the US intervention in the 20th century, but it's hard to ignore the fact that they (by they I mean the governmental authorities; I understand the Iranian people are much less "death to America" than they appear) hate us because we installed and supported a brutal monarchy to promote anti-Soviet stability in the Middle East; well, the Soviets are long gone, but the hatred we instilled with our stupid foreign policy lives on to bedevil us... way to go, America
One thing that we should do, is open low-cost clinics and education centers in various countries around the world, as part of our embassy/consulate services. It should be part of our foreign policy presence, and should be used to promote the greater well being of others.
In some cases, the local government won't tolerate education; fine. No money either. Not a thing. Let the people see that their own government limits what they can have, and in time, they may choose another way. But we cannot enforce our will on others through military/economic means, and we cannot go on being the world's cop; two simple reasons:
1. We can't afford it
2. It doesn't work
By the way, your use of the word "isolationist" has rhetorical uses, but no intellectual ones. I didn't say America should ignore the world. I said we should change our relationship with the world, to more closely match what tends to be successful in
every relationship: help them do things for themselves if we agree that it's a good thing; don't if don't.
Michael L
