In those far away lands, fanatics exist to commit terror, to precisely the extent that the national governments allow them, or are to weak to stop them. If a successor government in Iraq allowed Saddam to have any power or resources for teror, it would be an unacceptable government, from the standpoint of the US (and Britain).
One way or the other, and sooner or later, the US military might WILL stamp down terrorists. If it requires taking down a government (Afghanistan, Iraq) it will get done. If it is non-governmental terror operatives, the US will REQUIRE the host government to act, or will eventually do so, in spite of the government.
It won't all happen at once. Several nations need adjustment, such that they are less danger to their citizens, neighbors and to the US. The adjustments will be brought about by military, political and financial means.
It appears there was no "peace dividend" at the close of the cold war. Islamist terror is the enemy of civilized nations.
There is no way in hell this can happen. First off,if he were to agree to step down and leave,he wouldn't be there to keep his foot on their necks. He's a dictator,not a popular elected president. He rules,he doesn't lead,and he rules through fear. If he is living in another country and not in daily control of the army and the police,he no longer has the means to threaten. Secondly,the reason all the above is true is because monitered elections would be a part of the deal,and there is no way in hell a elected government can allow Saddam Hussein to retain any power. Their own lives would be at risk. Hussein and his whole family would have to leave Iraq for him to get this deal.