There was no dynastic succession in syria, if anything the baathist regime shows how weirdly resilient it is even when faced with insane pressure. Keep in mind

There was no dynastic succession in syria, if anything the baathist regime shows how weirdly resilient it is even when faced with insane pressure. Keep in mind the iraqi baathist party was much more popular in iraq that assad is in syria. Also, no matter how violent a hypothetical baathist succession crisis would be, it would not have come close to what happened due to the invasion. If anything, the iraqi war was the reason the syrian civil war was so bloody. The al qaida elements in iraq overtook the grass root rebellion in syria, and ISIS would literally have not existed if Saddam was still in power. Same for the sectarian violence that will plague iraq for decades to come. Saddam absolutely deserved the rope, but that does not mean the US had any right to intervene because of that. Plus, the reason the US invaded had officially nothing to do with regime change. The "saving iraq from it's dictator" narrative only came after the WMD lies became evident.