Excepting that he was financially supporting acts of terrorism in at least one other nation, bragged about by him in public, that sort of puts a big pin in your thought bubble.
How can he be considered controlling the terrorists, when he’s contributing to acts of terrorism outside his own borders?
You’re talking about the Mujahedin-e-Khalq, the group that tried to overthrow the mullahs in Iran. There’s been much conjecture as to whether that group deserves the “terror” label at all.
That said, I’m not lionizing Saddam Hussein. The question was.. would his regime be able to stop ISIS. The answer, IMO is yes. Bad as he was, Iraq would be a far less messier situation than it is now. Like Assad for Syria and Khadafy was to Libya.. the dictators are the least-worst option.