No. The reason primarily is that the case that made war against Saddam a necessity does not exist in the case of North Korea and Iran.
North Korea
1. As brutal as the country is to its own people, North Korea has not invaded another country in over half of century. This is the direct opposite of Saddam who invaded and attacked four different countries over the past 20 years and threatened the planets energy supply with sabotage and siezure.
2. North Korea may have produced every general type of WMD known to man, but how many times have they used this WMD against other countries? NONE Saddam on the other hand has used WMD more times than any leader in history!
3. Any attack on North Korea would have to consider some of the unique and unavoidable consequences of any such attack. Unlike any other place on the planet, North Korea has massed the planets largest artillery force in the mountains along the DMZ, less than 30 miles from South Korea's largest city Seoul, with 10 million people. North Korea has thousands of large, well hidden and defended, artillery pieces, that could rain down thousands of artillery shells in a matter of minutes all over one of the largest cities on the planet. The number of people that could be killed in the FIRST DAY of any conflict just from North Korean Artillery being fired at the city of Seoul is in the "hundreds of thousands". While the US military and South Korean military could gradually destroy much of this artillery, it would probably take many days or weeks to completely destroy every piece of North Korean Artillery in range of the South Korean capital. Considering the number of people that would die the first day, several weeks later, the numbers would be unbelievable.
4. Then, if #3 was not enough, you have to consider the fact that North Korea has had Nuclear Weapons since 1994. North Korea probably has a few dozen nuclear warheads that are or can be fitted to short or medium range ballistic missiles that can hit any part of Japan, North Eastern China, and Eastern Russia. This gives them the capability to wound or kill over a million people in less than 15 minutes.
5. To sum up, North Korea has had a very benign and conservative behavior compared to SADDAM in regards to international invasion and attack of other countrys, and in that sense do not represent a threat. BUT because of their capabilities un democratic and hostile behavior to their people and disagreements with other countries on nearly everything, the World must be prepared to fight North Korea if it decides to use its capabilities against any other country. Because any conflict could potentially lead to millions of deaths within the first few weeks, disarming North Korea through military intervention is not an option, in the current situation. Only a rather unique situation where the costs of continuing containment was greater than the cost of intervention, would military intervention then become a necessity. As it stands right now, North Korea appears to have no interest in war with the Wests as long as the United States, South Korea and other countries keep their military guard up. North Korea has not invaded any country in over half a century and despite is militant tone, is unlikely to do so any time in the near future as long as South Korea and the United States maintain a large and strong military force.
1. Iran, like North Korea has not actually launched an unprovoked military invasion of another country in a long time. In fact, you have to go all the way back to 1856 to find Iran actually engaging in the same behavior(launching an unprovoked invasion of another country) that Saddam did four times while he was in power. Iran for a very long time after World War II was an ally of the Western World. Its only been since the Iranian revolution of 1979, that extremist anti-western elements have hijacked the country. Saddam's unwise invasion of Iran in 1980 and the military setbacks Saddam suffered created the potential for the new Iranian extremist government to defeat Iraq and then prey on the smaller Arab nations that were south of Iraq and contained a majority of the planets energy supply. Iran was never that strong though and never really had handle on Saddam where they could truely envision going further than Iraq. Eventually they were defeated.
2. Iran's conventional military and power projection capability has always been rather weak and and was not a match for Saddam's reduced and defeated military following the 1st Persian Gulf War in 1991. Saddam's military maintained a conventional military force that still had twice as many armored vehicles and other weapon systems as Iran did, even after his defeat in the 1st Gulf War. Although Iran has purchased new military equipment from Russia and other countries, most of its military equipment remains outdated and some of it is still old outdated American military equipment from the days of the Shah.
3. It appears Iran has placed much of its money in getting nuclear weapons as opposed to developing a large well equipped conventional military force suited for invading and occupying large area's as Saddam used to have. Their Chemical and Biological warefare capability is far behind what Saddam once had and has rarely if ever been used.
4. The two things that make Iran a threat despite its major shortcomings in capabilities and benign behavior in the situations above, is its support for Terrorism primarily against Israel through (Humas and Hezbolah) and its intense pursuit to develop a nuclear weapon.
5. To sum up, the chance that there could be war with Iran in the future is a lot higher than any chance there would be war with North Korea. Although the Mullah's in Iran are a lot less militant than they were 25 years ago at the start of the Iranian revolution, they still have views and idea's that are cause for serious concern. Their actions and crackdowns on Iranian democratic movements is a huge concern. How far they are willing to go in terms of building a nuclear weapon and what they would be willing to do with such weapons is not known and is a huge cause for concern.
To the degree that Iran's connections to terrorism are confined to Humas and Hezbolah and that those organizations terrorism is confined to the Israeli/Palestinian situation, US military internvention in Iran is unlikely even with the development of Nuclear Weapons. The problem is that situation could change overnight. To what degree would Iran use its Nuclear Weapons technology to aid any terrorist organization? In addition, once Iran has nuclear weapons, the costs and risk to military intervention to disarm Iran dramatically go up.
A strong case can be made for the need to intervene to stop Iran from developing Nuclear Weapons, but because Iran has been rather benign in so many area's where SADDAM was a hostile monster, its weak military capabilities excluding its nuclear program, its greater distance from vital energy reserves in Kuwait and Saudi Arabia, and the unknowns about its connections with terrorism, I would have to say that for now, military intervention should not be attempted. There are still a lot of diplomatic and economic options that could be used against Iran that could have a positive effect. In addition, while the Mullahs have contained or are containing the democracy movement in Iran, it is still there and their numbers are growing. Iran is about to experience a population explosion in the next 20 years and its going to be increasingly difficult for the Mullahs to maintain their grip on power.
Any military intervention in Iran would have to be an all out military internvention to remove the government and disarm the Nuclear problem. Airstrikes while they could hurt Iran would not end or stop the nuclear problem even if they were successful at hitting key centers for development. It could delay the development of a BOMB if the strikes were successful, but thats it. The only thing that would insure that a Nuclear Weapon would not be developed would be the replacement of the government and the Mullahs.
Hopefully, over the next 25 years, Iran will eventually develop into a democracy. Iran is very different from SADDAM's Iraq where one person was running the whole place and had the greatest internal security operation to prevent any revolution or overthrow of his power. In Iran, like in Serbia a few years ago, Iran's conservatives have the power, but it is on very shakey ground and a variety of things could make it fall apart.
For right now, the case for military intervention in Iran is not strong enough, but could be in the future if certain things were to change. This is without considering the fact that the US miltary already has a lot on its plate with Iraq/Afganistan and its other military committments around the world. Another problem will be if and when military intervention becomes a necessity, will Iran by then have the "BOMB" and what costs and problems would military intervention under those conditions entail?