And thats exactly my point, thats what America would do if they could, but they obviously can't because of the sectarianism and power vacuums between the different Muslim sects.
Middle East and N Africa had a pretty damn good balance between the various factions over the last 70 years.
Many of those countries because of the sectarianism cannot have "democracy". Saddam, Gaddafi, Assad, Mubarak regardless everything else always kept a balance protecting the minorities and hitting hard against any of those threatening toppling that balance from the inside.
The fanatics always saw this as oppression against them, but this isn't new. Same applied all way back to the Abhassid, Umayyad, Seljuk and Ottoman Empires who controlled this area.
Been Christian or any type of Muslim, didn't matter at all for thousands of years, because nobody ruling those lands wanted civil war so always did a severe crackdown to keep those steering trouble in check.
WE (UK, USA and lackeys) destroyed that balance allowing religious fanatical differences of over 1200 years taking up arms trying to fill the vacuum we are responsible for. If tomorrow someone topples the Saudi king, the same thing would happen in SA. Same thing would happen if someone topples the Jordan king, or Morocco's king. Hell give a big nudge to Turkey, a "democratic" country, and going to start burning.
Of all those countries the only one doesn't have the potential of sectarian civil war is Iran. That's why makes it too dangerous when everyone else is destabilized by our own hands.
Iran/Persia is very misunderstood country, and are morons those who believe would have a walk in the park in a country with very strong national identity going for 5000 years. Britain did it twice, in 1940 and 1955. But times were different.