Isaiah 19 could be fulfilled during the millennium (cf. Zechariah
14:16-19).
There is no "could" to it. The last part of this chapter is definitely millennial. But the first part cannot be, because it speaks of war, and there will be no war during the millennium.
The Assyrian in Isaiah 7:17-20 could be the Assyrian in 2 Chronicles
28:20.
This is not possible, because it speaks of simultaneous swarms from Assyria and from Egypt. This never happened in ancient times, but is expressly prophesied of the end times in Daniel 11:40.
The Assyrian in Isaiah 10:5-34 could be the Assyrian in Isaiah
chapters 36-37.
This is not possible because the Assyrian of Isaiah 10 is sent against an hypocritical nation, andagainst the people of God's wrath, and Hezekiah was the most Godly king Judah ever had, and the people were of one heart in following him in following the Lord.
Isaiah 10:12 says that this Assyrian will be punished "when the Lord hath performed his whole work upon mount Zion and on jerusalem." That has not yet been finished.
Isaiah 10 20 says that "the remnant of Israel, and such as are escaped of the house of Jacob, shall no more again stay upon him that smote them; but shall stay upon the LORD, the Holy One of Israel, in truth." They have even yet not learned this lesson.
Isaiah 10:25 says that the Lord's Indignation and anger will cease in the destruction of these Assyrians. But that indignation and anger has even yet not ceased.
And The attacker in Isaiah 36-37 came from Lacish. that is the opposite direction from the path described in Isaiah 10:28-3
Isaiah 7:17-20 doesn't require a simultaneous invasion of Judah by
both Assyria and Egypt, for the "river of Egypt" wasn't the Nile, but
a wadi which formed the boundary between Philistia and Egypt
(Joshua 15:47,4).
The "wadi of Egypt" is a single strream that only runs sometimes. "The rivers of Egypt" is plural, and thus could not refer to a singular wadi.
There's no proof that no ancient invasion ever approached Judah
along the path of Isaiah 10:28-32.
You have said this again and again, but this is simply argumentative. You are perfectly aware that both secular history and scripture clearly say that Sennacherib's army approached Jerusalem by a different path. And scripture clearly says he never came there at all.
Nor is there even one historical account of any othjer army approaching along this path.
But you are so invested in your "might of hapened, could happen" system of interpretation that you resolutely refuse to listen to reason.
Isaiah 14:29 could refer to Tiglath-Pileser III and Sennacherib.
Verse 29 clearly refers to verse 25, which was unquestionably Sennacherib, not Tiglath-Pipeser III. So the second attacker could not be Sennacherib.
Isaiah 30:31 could refer to the Antichrist.
This would only be possible if your interpretation that the Assyrian is the Antichrist is correct. But this is not possible for many reasons. All the scriptural and historical evidence in this post has already been clearly pointed out to you, but you are intransegent. You refuse to accept correction from the Holy Scriptures or from history, and continue to imagine past scenarios for which there is no evidence and future scenarios for which there is no scriptural basis. Until you submit your imagination to the Holy Scriptures, I see little hope for you.