I'm not quite sure what you're saying. Maybe I need more coffee.
We can't wait for 2 yrs for it to be "Iran's turn". The American people won't support the war in Iraq, or Afghanistan or anywhere else for that long. And in the meantime, our soldiers and innocent Iraqis are being killed by bombs and support coming from Iran. (not to mention hostility from the likes of alSadr who works for the regime and various other disruptive elements.) Iraq is infested with regime agents. If we don't destroy the nest, we don't stand a chance stopping the infestation.
The sooner we get rid of the Iranian regime, the sooner we get out of Iraq and Afghanistan. The longer we wait, the longer we have to fight and the more fed up the American people will become. (we'll be forced out of Iraq by public consensus and the Iranian regime will take over)
Also, getting rid of the regime erases the nuclear weapons threat.
It also helps the democratic movement in Lebanon, because Syria is dependent on Iran. The regime in Syria will collapse without Iran, and the Lebanese can delouse their country of Syrian agents and disrupters.
In order for President's Bush's plans and dreams of seeing peace and democracy in the Middle East to materialize, he MUST get rid of the Iranian regime. The sooner the better.
With all the threats coming from Iran, I think it's a good time for the President to stand up and say enough is enough. I'd like him to announce to the Iranian regime (and the American people) "You've been threatening us for a long time and we're not going to take it any more. You've got 48 hrs to resign and turn yourselves in, or we're taking you out. You've been brutalizing your own people for 27 yrs and you've been supporting the terrorists in Iraq which has cost American lives.
We're not going to stand by and watch you inprison and torture and kill your people any more. The Iranian people have spoken and they don't want you. They want to be free.
Come out or we're coming in to get you."
[Of course we'd have to be watching the borders, and have air traffic controllers over neighboring countries refuse entry into their air space, because they'll be a lot of sudden departing flights with very important people on board]
(I think if he went on American TV and listed the regime's involvement in terrorist acts over the past 27 yrs and their threats against us, especially those in the past 2 yrs or so, and told Americans that getting rid of the regime would also take care of the nuclear weapons threat, he'd have the support of the American people to take them out.)
2) Given the failure to produce overwhelming evidence of WMDs in Iraq (I think the evidence is conclusive, but the "Average Joe" probably doesn't), we are NOT going to war with Iran short of a clear-cut, deliberate Iranian attack on the U.S. homeland, and that isn't going to happen. They would fire a missile at the Jews first, but no Mullah is that stupid as to attack us.
3) Militarily, unless we pull all our people out of Germany and Korea, we wouldn't have the military power to invade (much less hold) Iran and Iraq at this point.
This is exactly why Bush has not pushed this yet. You are NOT going to make a sufficient case to the American public (no matter how reasonable strategically) to invade Iran without a direct attack.
It's difficult to find for a couple of reasons - first, because guerillas must attempt to hide casualties to create the illusion of victory, and second, because a profoundly hostile press sees the maintenance of this illusion as an expression of political power.
In fact, the entire idea of using Iraq as flypaper for international jihadists has proven very effective, and is in my opinion the critical weakness of the entire concept of jihad - they must fight under disadvantageous circumstances and the foot soldiers don't mind casualties. Unfortunately that's also a recipe for a protracted and disproportionately bloody conflict such as the one we see before us. The locals into which the guerillas blend take awhile to realize that the people ostensibly fighting the outsider are outsiders themselves without their interests at heart. This realization was only spottily achieved in Vietnam but is being achieved with astonishing success in Iraq.
In purely military terms the Iraq intervention itself has been an astonishing success - ground gained, objectives realized, and especially kill ratios. The fight, as in Vietnam, is in the political arena and the playing field is very slanted against success there. Bush will not be in office in 2009 but the current occupants of editorial boards will remain. These are not accountable to the voters, and only the market can correct them. And what I think we see is a struggle and a race between their ability to manipulate the market and the market's ability to manipulate them.