The answer to your last question is no, I don't think it has anything to do with that, given the fact there is no basis for listing them that way, as I said. The standard under U.S. law is that there must be evidence they have engaged in a terrorist act within the last two years, or that they currently have the inclination and ability to do so. There is no evidence that either of those is true.
As far as the question of intervention is concerned, the United States cites Iraq's sovereignty over that territory. That, in my view, should not defeat our own commitment, particularly given the fact that the Government of Iraq owes its existence to the United States.