CLINTON, N.Y. -- LEAKS from the White House these days sound disturbingly like those reported by the media before the invasion of Iraq: namely, that Vice President Dick Cheney is preparing for a major military strike against Iran to deny it nuclear capability.

No doubt, the vice president has some valid concerns. But the Iranian hierarchy, despite irrational statements, has never before exhibited suicidal behavior, and is unlikely to sacrifice itself for a one-time nuclear strike against the U.S. or Israel. The U.S. would be equally mad to sacrifice any hope of stabilizing the region by launching an ill-advised air strike against Iran.

Recent news about the proliferation of nuclear weapons in the region, and the overarching fear that they will fall into the hands of terrorists, is certainly disturbing. The issue has become more pressing with a recent atomic-energy-agency announcement that Iran had 1,300 centrifuges spinning. According to expert analysis, Iran needs 3,000 centrifuges spinning to create weapons-grade fissile material. But even the most alarming expert estimates put Iran three to five years away from the possibility of a nuclear device, and that is if everything works perfectly.

Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmedinijad is behaving more rationally than we may think. His verbal attacks on Israel and the United States establish him in the minds of many people in Iran and the Middle East as the only leader in the region with the guts to stand up to the U.S. and Israel. That gives him stature in Iran and strength to withstand his many detractors within the Iranian regime. At the same time, he has added to Iran’s prestige and regional influence. His behavior would only be crazy if he had to act on the basis of his bombast.

It is also very hard to believe that the Iranian government, if it were able to acquire nuclear weapons and delivery systems, would be willing to share them with terrorists who truly are irrational. In the shifting alliances of the Middle East, a “tame” terrorist might not stay tame. And why should the Iranians take the chance that the Americans or Israelis would respond to a nuclear terrorist attack by terrorists with a nuclear strike at Iran as the presumed sponsor?

Then there are pragmatic concerns over whether a U.S. military strike on Iran’s nuclear facilities would succeed. Estimates I have heard from the Pentagon are that it would take intensive strikes over a period of several weeks on multiple targets, including air defense, naval and Revolutionary Guard targets to limit Iran’s retaliatory capacity. And even then we would not know how much we have degraded Iran’s capability. As Iran rebuilds, will we have to do it all over again, repetitively? Only occupation or regime change could reduce the threat over the long haul, and it is highly unlikely that we have the resources or the appetite for yet another long-term military commitment where American lives are at stake.

As Mohammed el Baradi, director of the International Atomic Energy Agency, said, “you cannot bomb away knowledge.”

There is, of course, another explanation for the White House leaks. It has been a standard belief in the administration that Iran will only react to credible threats, whether they be in relation to sanctions or military action. Iran’s supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Kahmeni, has tended to go to the brink but not cross over the line. The problem is that Iran has displayed much more aggressive behavior since we became embroiled in Iraq’s sectarian warfare. Iran’s newfound confidence must, at least partially, be attributed to the belief that the U.S. teeth have been broken on the Iraq endeavor, leaving Iran free to flex its muscles.

The presumption that Vice President Cheney is eager for a military confrontation with Iran is credible. He is seen globally as the administration’s junkyard dog, and no one, including the Iranians, can take his threats and his influence lightly.

So we may be in the position of two combatants, each posturing for different audiences — Ahmedinijad for support in Iran and the Middle East, Cheney for the ayatollah. The posturing turns into everyone’s problem if it becomes reality.

Edward S. Walker Jr. is a professor of global political theory at Hamilton College, in Clinton, N.Y., and an adjunct scholar with, and former president of, the Middle East Institute. He was U.S. ambassador to Israel, Egypt and the United Arab Emirates, and was assistant secretary of state for Near Eastern Affairs in the George W. Bush and Clinton administrations.