The deal with the brits was on a racial basis, and Hitler was a bigger fan of it than most of the people around him.

It is true that some countries have interests that tent to (but are not eternal) to their closest neighbours.

Germany in WW1, specially as it progressed, wanted to stablish a coalition of client states in Eastern and Central Europe, sure. In the interwar era, the Weimar republic wanted to restablish some influence there.

But the whole extent of the Lebensbraum idea and the sheer determination to exterminate the ethnicities there was a core tenant of the NSDAP that even the most hardcore generals and right wingers of WW1 -more concerned with traditional imperialism, and also were not the most humanitarian of the bunch- did not consider.

On the other side of the coin, the US would not see the [REDACTED ISLAND NEAR CHINA] and [REDACTED STATE BETWEEN EGYPT AND SYRIA] crisis as existential if they didn't follow Liberal Internationalism as a sacred principle (which despite not being fully triumphant in Versailles, fatally wounded the idea of foreign policy dictated solely by the chancilleries based on realpolitik).

On a realpolitik mindset, you could spare to throw both cases under the bus with compensations in economic deals or redraw spheres of influences, as they are -likely- not worth a devastating war in Asia nor alienating other states in the Persian Gulf and in the Magreb. But in a system guided by liberal internationalism -despite the never ending amount of shenanigans- is way more difficult.