Clinton wouldn't have invaded Iraq, but Afghanistan for sure. Would have turned out basically the same mess at did post-2001 since this was always a war that couldn't be won on the battlefield.
The Taliban hadn't even taken over Afghanistan yet (this was more or less accomplished in 1996).
So, invasion of Afghanistan, even if that's during his second term or his successor's. In any case, denying al-Qaeda a base of operations would make it a major staging ground for the War on Terror whether that's during the lawlessness of the Afghan Civil War or after the takeover of the Taliban.
The War on Terror was to a certain segment of Washington that was very much there in the 1990s an opportunity to preemptively contain challengers to US power (even then, despite their turmoil, strategists pointed to Russia and China) and cross "rogue states" off the hit list to reinforce US hegemony. It was always going to implicate Afghanistan and Iraq, and if the neocons had been so emboldened, Iran and Syria. Maybe you could argue that it would take a Republican administration to get that agenda through, but as OTL, the Democrats would be under intense pressure to toe the line. But since Afghanistan had literally been a base for multinational Islamic extremists since the 1980s, even taking away the broader geopolitical reasons for establishing influence there, it would be a very logical target. If the US starts going after terrorism, it's very hard to find a reason why they don't go into Afghanistan.
