You were saying in the Iran thread long live the shah. After all the excuses you gave, turns out you don't believe a word you posted here.
Yes and if China does that it will be bogged down with commitments and will have to divert time and resources to defend governments that, more often than not, are too corrupt and/or incompetent to sufficiently defend themselves. The US can interfere and put pro-US governments all it wants, the bottom line is that those countries will still need to buy goods from the largest producer nation in the world and will have no choice but to deal with China one way or another.
Most of US decline is due to excessive overseas commitments globally, it's very costly. Most of Chinese success is focusing internal growth, reinvest money for more power. Also, China signed a 25 year strategic deal worth $400 billion with Iran in 2021, but the Iranians never moved forward to implement it, still favoring the West. Not China's fault for Iran not implementing it. Venezuela and Syria are too far for enduring force projection, and quite fragile and corrupt.
The primary cause of the U.S. economic downturn lies in its excessive focus on financial metrics, shifting away from the real economy toward speculative activities. Compounding this is the nation's profoundly unequal wealth distribution coupled with government corruption. In reality, the costs incurred through U.S. foreign expansion are not inherently unacceptable, let alone capable of fundamentally undermining the nation's foundations.
I wished China would have engaged with friendly governments. But if it thinks that it's a better strategy to focus on itself and not cultivate allies, then the best strategy for others is to get friendly with the US
At this point arguing further over China's involvement is a waste of time at the moment in this thread. What we users say isn't important now.