I will ignore your unnecessary personal insult, and instead agree with you to a point. Yes, the Shah was incompetent. And yes, Saddam was evil.
So is it a good idea for the United States to interfere in another country, and oust a bad leader? Maybe. But we’d better have a darn good idea about what’s coming next, who the replacement will be.
In both cases it seems to me that we traded down. The region would be better off had Saddam and the Shah been left power. Of course your mileage may vary.
No it’s not a good idea. But let’s remember facts. A we actually PROPPED up the Shah, he was our puppet, so you can’t say we ousted him at all. Now we shouldn’t have been propping him up either, but math matters.
And Saddam was involved in attacking us, and our interests multiple times. We actually have to do something about him.
No the region absolutely would NOT be better with Saddam and the Shah. For one thing the Shah died of natural causes so one way or the other he’s out. The simple reality is the Middle East is a mess. And will remain that way for the foreseeable future. Too many dictators, not enough countries. With or without our interference there’s always crap going down. And scumbags get replaced by scumbags.