Mark Steyn says reforming Iraq is a huge gamble, given the cultural psychosis of the Arab world—but the status quo is not an option. (Hat tip: NC.)

America, in returning to Iraq 12 years on, is embarking on its boldest gamble in decades—a new Middle Eastern domino theory that says the liberation of Iraq is the best way to reform Iran, Syria, Saudi Arabia and beyond. Yes, it’s a long shot, but in this discussion it’s the fellows who insist you can never implant Western concepts like the rule of law and economic activity who are being the simpletons. The modern ”Middle East” is an Anglo-French invention that they never had time to complete: They’re like Baron von Frankenstein interrupted in his lab while he’s still fine-tuning the formula and chased off by the excitable burghers, leaving the monster to break free of his shackles and stagger off down the hill to terrorize the village. But, even as a failed and prematurely abandoned experiment, certain distinctions can be observed: A rough rule of thumb is that the least worst countries in the region are those which were most Britannicized. The continuing ”moderation” (comparatively) of Jordan and the Gulf emirates is essentially the enduring legacy of the Colonial Office. Were Iraq to be restored to its 1950s condition as a ramshackle Hashemite backwater, that in itself would constitute an almighty improvement in a part of the world that could certainly use some. Writing about last year’s Arab League summit, Jonathan Kay of Canada’s National Post noted that if Zimbabwe’s election-fixing strongman Robert Mugabe had shown up, he’s have been the most democratically legitimate leader in the room.