I think he overstates the likelihood of war with Iran, but I'm glad to see he's raising the issue (e.g. Cheney's has lost a strong ally in Don Rumsfeld; Condi is also showing signs of rediscovering her realist roots--G.W. Bush's rhetoric about isn't as over-the-top as it was last year).
It doesn't hurt that this administration has very little credibility after the Iraq War WMD claims--this raises the bar for any future action.
Clark first raised the alarm about this issue about two months ago--he sounded the alarm bells about an article by a former Washington Times editor Arnaud de Borchegrave if I remember correctly . . .
Borchegrave does have a history as being a leak source for GOP administration's--sometimes as a "disinformation diseminator". Even if Cheney is leaking information to him, this does not = GWB, the Decider, is angling for a war with Iran.
Cheney clearly is itching for a war, but his power has been diminished within the administration (note: Condi Rice's push for engagement with North Korea over NeoCon objections).
I would sleep much more easily if Cheney was in retirement or in prison. But this time around there are some counterweights inside the administration.
Certainly, the Bushies are trying to stir the pot so they can go to war without Congressional approval, so the situation there is becoming more urgent. I'd have to disagree that his account of the situation is over the top. As many times as he's been right in recent years, I wouldn't bet against what he's saying.
I'm also quite sure that Wes Clark is not relying on Arnaud de Borchegrave when he has highly reputable contacts on the ground in the ME as well as in the Pentagon.
The question is: How much influence does Cheney still have in foreign policy. I have a hard time believing that the Iraq experience has not sobered GWB more than a little (just look at all those grey hairs).
It seems like some of the new folks (Gates, Paulson) have a different vision on Iran. Gates is a foreign policy realist, and his comments of late have reflected this world view. Rice's roots are also in the realist school with her mentor Brent Scowcroft having shaped her outlook. The North Korean diplomacy gives me some hope on this front. Rice took heat from the NeoCon wing for pushing these talks during the summer and fall of this past year (e.g. you'd hear stories in the press by clowns like Richard Perle saying that Rice was on the bubble, or that she was going to resign by the end of 2007 -- pretty classic intimidation campaign, probably pushed by the Office of the VP). But Rice was able to sway the president's thinking on this issue. She was also able to sway the president's thinking on Baker-Hamilton (not in terms of endorsing it's recommendations, but cooperating with the inquiry--something that the Office of the VP opposed).
This article by Karen DeYoung was buried in the Post today, but it's worth reading.
Even this news about the E.E.F's from Iran seems like it could serve a couple purposes.
1. Is the obvious one: That this administration is building a case against Iran for the purposes of a missile strike, or an invasion.
2. That this is simply a diversion to get the public's focus away from GWB's failed Iraq policy and talking about something else. Even the administration acknowledged that E.E.F's have only accounted for about .4 to .5% of the Iraq War casualties. Yes that's right. 99.6% of the Iraq War casualties, by the administration's own admission have NO link to Iran. Yet, some in the press are being played like a fiddle.
Maybe there's some combination of the two at work, but it's hard to say.
I have no doubt that Clark is hearing alarms from sources inside the DoD. The question is who is driving the policy? The Office of the Vice President could be driving war planning (and likely is), but, at the end of the day will Cheney call the shots? Or will GWB defer to Gates, Rice, Paulson, et al?
I would feel much more comfortable if Cheney was put in prison or encouraged to spend more time with his family. Still . . .
Congress should step in and explicitly tie the administration's hands on a pre-emptive strike (a binding resolution, or revisiting of the 2002 AUMF would limit the administration's room for manuever. Contrary to what GWB says--his people DO read polls, as do his GOP supporters in congress. If he pushes action unilaterally without congressional approval--especially in the face of a more restrictive AUMF--he would single-handedly fracture the GOP).
Also, while I don't think that Gates, and Rice individually would have the cahones to stand up to Cheney--collectively, I think that they will and have on the Iran issue (DeYoung's article supports this view).