Suppose for a moment that the threat of war with Iran might conceivably be necessary, as a ploy of coercive diplomacy. This is not to say that war itself is necessary or appropriate, only that the credible threat of it lies within the imaginable range of options.
In that case - if there is any possibility of needing to go to war, isn't it absolutely necessary that Bush, Cheney, and Rumsfeld resign? Their incompetence at war and everything else is well understood by a hefty majority of the American people.
(This does not mean putting sock puppet Denny Hastert in the White House; the Agnew-Nixon resignations supply precedent for a constitutional alternative.)
Anyone who asserts that war might be necessary, but is not willing to demand their resignations is on the face of it non-serious if not delusional. So ... why not raise this question to the people who are tooting the war bugles? If they think we may need to enter another war, are they willing to call for the architects of the disastrous current one to step down? If not, why not?
That shifts the debate from "the Iranians are bad" to "Bush is incompetent." It will make Republicans squirm, and might even bring out a few long knives.
I like it. I've long advocated a similar approach for Iraq--if we're going to stay, then we absolutely HAVE to get competent (non-Rummy) leadership at the healm. Otherwise, we'll just be shipping off our men and women to serve as IED fodder.
But expand the idea to Iran? Yeah. I like that.