You are contradicting yourself. Saddam might be in good books of USA when he was focused on Iran but this changed when he ordered invasion and annexation of Kuwait in 1990. At this stage, Americans realized that Saddam is a threat to their interests in the Middle East and cannot be trusted. They felt the need to stop him, therefore. This shows that Saddam was nobody's puppet but made his own decisions. His problem was that he was too stubborn and rigid for his own good.
+
Bilateral relations between two states are not written in stone but shaped by interests in large part. The interests can converge or diverge over time subject to decision(s) of the leader(s) of both countries. No American President took oath to protect and patronize Saddam as a matter of state policy.
No, it's you who contradicted yourself, first aid Saddam was a threat, later changed your word and said he might had been before... As I said, Saddam just didn't knew his position, he thought American support had no limit.
US backed Saddam during his war with Iran wholeheartedly, from intelligence to weapons, from media to UNSC. US didn't even let UN condemn Iraq's use of chemical weapons, cause after all this was US which had provided it in first place. in the last year of war, US airforce directly joined Saddam to take back the Faw island, so this isn't a maybe, but a certainly.
This extensive support (which you call might!) was the reason Saddam forgot his position.
lol, US officials admit to have created these terrorist groups and you say source? right, I will ask CIA to write about their works on the Wikipedia!
US gathered wahhabi terrorists from around the world to fight Syrian government, each one under its own brand, but all for the same side. tens of billions of cache and endless flow of western weapons was driving the battlefield, not some tribal agenda, their name or faction doesn't matter. it's not like the column of ISIS brand new cars grew from underground!
US never wanted and will never want a powerful Iraq army which is a majority Shiah country, but ISIS quick advancement in Iraq was more due to treason of it's officials, which was expected from US aligned traitors, basically Mosul fell with no resistance.
The very same ISIS was stopped in Kurdistan of Iraq just by Gen. Soleimani and 70 of his men.
Iraq popular forces liberated the ISIS held cities quickly, but it took 8 months to free the Mosul and that was solely the American sabotage who used their sectarian excuses to prevent popular forces join the war. and what was delivered was a fully city ruined city, thanks to US bombardments.
I completely understand that USA and Iran are NOT on good terms. I know much about when and how USA have attempted to harm Iran. I can point out events and incidents. I do my homework.
But it is still a stretch to assert that USA have attempted to destroy Iran. Just look at how USA treated Iraq in comparison.
1. Both USA and Iran were on the same page for punishing Saddam regime.
2. Both USA and Iran were on the same page for punishing ISIL.
No, Iran and US weren't on the same page of punishing the saddam. US master plan was to attack Iran after Afghanistan and Iraq. American Generals and even G.W. Bush have admitted that, what prevented them was solely Iran's power. Furthermore, if US left the Iraq, it was due to daily attack of Iran-backed forces.
US helping Iraq or Kurds against ISIS was also to prevent Iran taking the role, to prevent the so called Tehran-Damascus road. if it wasn't for the US, now Syria was united again already and geared up on Israel border, while US was being remembered as the founder of yet another terrorist group.
. 
thus why almost every conquerer of persia continued eastwards towards the indus from alexander to arabs.
