What if....we never invaded Iraq

Well Rand Paul said something interesting via Hot Air:

All the way back to the Iraq War, I think it was a mistake to topple [Saddam] Hussein. Hussein was the bulwark against Iran. The Sunnis didn’t like the Shiites, now Iraq is a vassal state for Iran,” Mr. Paul, the libertarian-leaning Kentucky senator, said. “I’m worried [Iran] is twice as strong as it was before the Iraq War.…

An interesting mental exercise.

So lets imagine. In 2003 we don't invade Iraq. Saddam remains in power. Instead of Iran infiltrating Iraq and bringing the country into its' sphere, Iraq remains a bulwark against Iran. One of the worries the Bush administration (the first one) had during Desert Storm was that the war would weaken Saddam so much he wouldn't be able to resist Iran.

That's one scenario.

Another is that Saddam remains in power and Iraq is eventually torn apart by the Shia-Sunni split which is raging across the Middle East. Of course, had there been an Iranian backed Shia revolt in Iraq, there is little reason to think the Iraqi army wouldn't have crushed it. After all, it did just that against the Kurds and Shia in 1991, and that's after being pummeled by Coalition forces.

If Saddam could have crushed the revolt early, well things would have shaken out much like they did in 1991, with Saddam maintaining his grip on power. If not Iraq would look much like Syria today.

So, is Rand Paul right?