No. Iraq wasn't much of a threat to anybody by 2003, certainly not Israel.

If we have other democracies in the ME, we have less need for Israel, so this helps Israel how?

Not that I am against the state of Israel, I believe that we do indeed have an obligation to make sure that it survives, but I am going to state obvious fact. One of the aims of the Iraq war was to secure the relm for Israel, as the neo-conservative think tank Project for a New American Century posited in its 1998 manifesto which was signed on to by leaders like Dick Cheney, Paul Wolfowitz, Richard Perle, and Don Rumsfeld. Israel is the lynchpin of the Middle East; our support is what keeps this delicate balance intact. However that does not mean that we should oursource of Middle East foreign policy straight to Likud and Ariel Sharon. We need to make support for Israel conditional on whether they are making legitimate effots to come to the table with the Palestinians. That is one of the reasons why we have troubles with the people of the Arab world. Now I understand that Israel has been subjected to Palestinian terrorism, but this is also a two way street here, both hold on real tight to their positions. Therefore, we should be as fair as possible in our mediations in the region. Clinton was the first President to really pick sides in this fight and that lead us to where we are today. Israel saw a strategic gain in a US invasion; a new buffer state would be established in between them and Iran, which is an up and coming power in the region. Having Iraq allied with them would serve as a cover against Iran, a soon to be nuclear power. However it seems as if it hasn't turned out to be such a perfect plan. Indeed, it might have been in Israel's interests to have kept Saddam there rather than have a Shi-ite dominated Iraq that is allied with their regional and cultural ally Iran. Israel's interests was one of the reasons why we invaded Iraq, but it wasn't the prominent one by no stretch of the imagination.

They will, but that's not why.