Yes, Reagan had it right ... nigh on twenty years ago.
Meanwhile, we've had a war with Iraq, they defied the terms of truce without response form the wimpy West (while Billy Jeff was more interested in f*llati* that foreign policy) and have since colluded with Al-Queda. Moreover, you quite wrongly presume there is nothing being done or in the works for Iran (or much of the Middle East, for that matter.
As for the 'Balkanization' of Iraq ... that is a laugher. I understand it's boundaries were actually drawn arbitrarily and with a ruler in the British Foreign & Commonwealth Office. Iraq is an unecessary construct of the post-Colonial era ... all the better it be carved up.
More to my original point, how's about that Iraq apolgist, Ritter?
Your analysis/rebuttal here is badly skewed. You do nothing to address the Balkanization of Iraq issue and the threat of an Iranian takeover of one or more of the three component parts of Iraq. Nor do you address the Bush pledge not to attack the 9-11 supporting Ayatollahs of Iran thus giving 9-11 terrorists fleeing Afghanistan a nice big sanctuary to rest, train, and re-arm for the next Iranian supported 9-11 operation. As for Ritter, he's spot on with Generals Schwartzkopf, Scowcroft, Hoar and others including former President George HW Bush and his entire War Cabinet except Cheney in regards to his belief that it would be militarily stupid to invade non-threat fourth rate military power Iraq and spark a new backlash which will radicalize virtually the entire Middle East against the US and wholly eliminate our ability to continue the war on terror. It will also lead to Iran becoming the regional nuclear hegemon of the entire Gulf region including Iraq.