They missed North Korea by a great deal further. I suspect they invaded the country they knew could invade. Afghanistan was too small and peripheral to send the message. North Korea and Iran are too problematic. Iraq was just right. The invasion went off fine - the problem has been in the follow-through.
Dream on.
"As I speak, bombs have started falling on Iran ..."
Good grief, yet another thread where someone picks one of the many reasons laid out for the Iraq war by the Congress, acts as if it were the only one and then proceeds to say "then why didn't/can't we invade (insert country of the day here) instead/also"...
You think? The US will be implicated in the attack, and quite rightly so - they can hardly claim not to have noticed the raid happen. The US is present right next door to Iran, and already have enough problems to contend with. Israel as a cat's-paw of US imperialism will gain credibility amongst Muslims - a few Hail Mary's won't atone for that. There's a limit to US commitment to Israel, AIPAC notwithstanding. Unless the tail really does wag the dog, Israel needs to take care.
I can't see the Brits invading Palestine again, they've been very forgiving of the murdering zionist terrorist bastards who created Israel. France, admittedly, has the least-zionist large Jewish population in the world, but they're fully-committed in Syria and Lebanon. The Germans are wracked by contrition; the Austrians, on the other hand, I will never trust, but neither does anybody else. Poles ditto, and no influence anyway. The Mediterranean members don't have much pull either. So, all in all, I wouldn't worry too much about being stabbed-in-the-back by the EU.
Leaving aside the subject of what most 'Murricans thought they were going to war for, which of the reasons have proved valid (I would trawl through the Joint Resolution just as most 'Murricans haven't if I could be arsed, but I can't).
cool