Why Iraq should have been second

Iran Says Ready for Serious Talks

If you have been paying any attention at all to the Nuclear stand-off with Iran you have probably heard President Bush say more than once that "Iran is not Iraq" or some such thing. Mostly in response to people who wonder why the same pre-emptive stance of the Bush doctrine has not been applied in Iran as well as Iraq. Well, that may be the administration's line but I have a different theory. It has to do with many other factors including that we are already in Iraq and have over 100,000 boots on the ground a mere stones throw away from Iran's considerable arsenal. Now I am sure that none of you would debate with me that Iran is and was at the time we invaded Iraq a greater threat both at home and in the greater middle east than Saddam Hussein. But for those of you who are not sure let me explain.

#1. The terror group Hezbollah makes its home in Iran and is financed solely by Iran according to all reliable intelligence. Hezbollah is the second greatest killer of American citizens accepting Al Quaeda in the world today. It has branches in many countries (including ours) and is nearly the sole source of terror against Israel and western interests in that region.
#2 Iran's army, unlike Iraq's had been flourishing and growing in power, number and capability since the Iran v Iraq war. It is (accepting Israel) the sole power in Central Asia boasting a formidable stock of missles and other semi-advanced weaponry and a human force in the hundreds of thousands.
#3 We had known at high levels prior to the invasion of Iraq that Iran had been carrying on a clandestine Nuclear program since the late 90's, something that as we now know Iraq had neither the money, nor the capability to do as of 2003.

Now, given that information, (and I am certain I missed some things) shouldn't Iran have been our first target in the war on Terror? Iraq would have kept as noted by our military ease in running over their army in two weeks time. As of today however we find ourselves unable to act on Iran because we went into Iraq first. Now an intelligent person could surmize that the larger purpose of going into Iraq was to establish a friendly government and a military presence in close proximity to hostile countries like Iran and Syria. Whether for the purpose of leverage or pre-emption we obviously wanted to be there. What we did not count on was the world's (and our own countries) reaction to a prolonged fight in Iraq. Nor did we plan for or count on there being a prolonged fight in Iraq. Thusly, as things stand today our hands are tied with regard to Iran to a certain extent because it has become obvious that the world and some of our own citizens will not tolerate another pre-emptive war without a major crystal clear justification, short of an Iranian attack on our soil. Not to mention the fact that a pre-emptive attack would bring an almost immediate response apon the closest US target, our soldiers stationed in Iraq. So we sit mired in the bureaucracy of the United Nations, not able to do what we really should do which is to nuke Iran's programs back into the 7th century. In addition we are subject to the whims of hostile powers on the Security council in China and Russia who have deep financial interests in seeing Iran's program survive or even succeed and thus will veto any resolution that suggests strong action. Now I am no conspiracy theorist nor am I against military action or my President, but I have to wonder why in light of all these facts, Iraq was not second?