Ah, thanks for the correction. I knew that it wasn't a common ideology among the average Iranian populace, I thought it was just the upper echelons of their political system got in on it to pay lip service.
Still, I doubt the Iranians would do much better at containing the regional sectarianism and extremists than the Saudis. Which is to say they would both ultimately encourage it as long as their interests had the upper hand.
They have two different interests in their foreign relations. If I remember correctly twlever shia islam (the predominante belief in iran) isn't very "evangelical" and has a kind of "jewishness" in that persecution and religious wrongs and "protecting one's one" and being good stewards is more important than sharing the "good news".
Iran isn't intervening in Yemen, Lebanon and Iraq for religious reasons. Its to help their "brothers" and give themselves influence. Suadi Arabia is much more like a Russia in that there is a kind of nilhistic view where sunnisim and their orthodoxy needs to be spread as the catalyst for their influence.
Iran is a typical proxy player not caring too much about what their clients think. SA is fighting a holy war because they see that has the best way to expand their proxies.
I think they'd both exploit regional strife. And don't think we should just "switch to iran" but I do think Iran cares more for stability than SA. SA tolerates ISIS and AQ as long as they don't stop oil and the regimes stability. Iran has much wider concerned were more dangerous groups (at least to world stability) are seen as a threat.
I just think its silly for us and the west to choose one over the other.
I should say my studies of Sunni. Whabbism, Shia, Tewelver, Fiver, Sufism was about 3-4 years ago so I could be wrong