jfruser,
They are about as good as you will ever find on that peninsula, unfortunately. If the regime topples in the short-term, it won't be replaced by a sun-drenched Swiss Confederation or Singaporean mild authoritarianism.
This sentiment makes no sense for someone who was an Iraq war supporter...
"Politics is the art of the possible."
----Otto Von Bismarck
I have gone over this before, but will quickly do so again.
Iraq was do-able in ways that Iran and SA were less-so.
Iran's population is more than double Iraq's (27.5m vs 65.4m). Assuming that Iran would also produce insurgent activity, the forces required to deal with it would also likely be double what we see in Iraq.
SA is close to the population of Iraq's at 27.6m, but there are other considerations that would make it a more difficult nut to crack. Two of those considerations are Mecca & Medina.
Of the remaining terrorist-supporting states, Syria would be hte easiest to knock over, but is is land-locked. We would need a country amenable to overflights and overland transport. The likeliest candidate would be Israel. Allowing us to do so would likely bring intolerable pressure on the Israelis from Fatah & Hamas & the Hezzies. Also, the corridor usable would be mighty narrow and easy to make travel through it a risky proposition.
Now, as to what made Iraq the best, first target, there are the reasons above: not the most populous, not the center of Sunni Islam, & not land-locked. First, there was the fact that Saddam was still in a state of open war against us, what with his SAM launches vs our planes. Second, SH had signed agreements after being whipped in GWI as to his conduct that he repeatedly broke. Last, the UN (worthless though it is) had authorized force against SH back in GWI, had not recinded them, and had passed a further 16 worthless resolutions calling on SH to fulfill his obligations. There are othe rreasons, but those are the biggest from a practicality standpoint.
But they're "the best option"? I think any other regime would be better...
The problem is that our influence is never used to push for change that would solve the problems of extremism and terrorism....
my second post:
"What you wrote is what so many folks just refuse to understand about reality: sometimes there are no good solutions to a problem (in the human time frame), just solutions that are more or less bad."
I do not share your rose-colored view of Iran's mullacracy. "Any"
likely other regime is not going to be better. If the psycho-mullahs create a theocracy, I bet it would be MUCH worse. There would be no moderation or attenuation of terrorist support from the top and there is every likelihood that they would make common cause with Iran's psycho-mullahs. The non-psycho Gulf states would be between the hammer and the anvil of Sunni & *expletive deleted*it theocracies and would capitualte to them. We could expect an oil embargo from the Gulf and nuclear blackmail from the Red Sea to the Black Sea.
Such an outcome would pretty much ensure the USA invaded
both Iran & SA.