As he stepped from the plane onto the tarmac of Heston airport, the prime minister could barely contain his excitement. Clasped tightly between his fingers was the fruit of a long process of hard-fought diplomacy. Jubilance filled the air. The sense of relief was palpable. As he prepared to read the note to an eager public, Neville Chamberlain considered the significance history would award to this day. Sept. 30, 1938, was to be a glorious testament to the power of diplomacy.

It was on this day that Britain’s Prime Minister Chamberlain, waving the non-aggression agreement signed by Adolf Hitler, declared those infamous words: “Peace for our time.” During the conference in Munich, the power of rhetoric had prevailed; the clenched fist of war had been staid.

Or so it seemed.

It is critical we consider the history of pre-World War ii diplomacy in the context of current events, and how American and British leaders are handling these issues. Compare world conditions leading up to World War ii with world conditions now. This world is knocking on the door of World War iii. Iran and radical terrorists are waging a political and military campaign designed to push the world into war. We are reliving 1938.

As evil leaders create a vortex that will suck the world into war, American and British leaders seek to solve the problem in the same manner Neville Chamberlain tried—that is, through diplomacy comprised solely of words and devoid of action.

Consider Iraq. Many of our leaders and so-called experts now believe that the solution to the crisis in Iraq lies in diplomacy, not military force. Pacifist thinking bleeds from the mainstream media as well as the highest levels of government, particularly the anti-war Democrats. Appeasement is becoming the policy of the day. Such thinking permeates the recently released report from the Iraq Study Group (isg) led by esteemed politician James Baker.

For years now, Tehran and Damascus have shown, through their words as well as their actions, that they are working against America and its interests in the Middle East. Much like Hitler had designs on Europe, Iran’s President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has designs on the entire Middle East, particularly oil-rich, Shia-dominated Iraq. So how does the isg propose the American government counter Tehran’s intentions? Through diplomacy alone.

While the isg report admits that dealing with Tehran and Damascus will be controversial and gritty, nevertheless it says, “It is our view that in diplomacy a nation can and should engage its adversaries and enemies to try to resolve conflicts and differences consistent with its own interests. Accordingly, the Support Group should actively engage Iran and Syria in its diplomatic dialogue, without preconditions” (emphasis mine throughout). This report talks extensively about conducting a new “diplomatic offensive” with Iran, Syria and every other party with an interest in Bagdad, but it says very little about underpinning these diplomatic efforts with threat of specific actions.

Okay, so let’s embrace Ahmadinejad and Assad in conversation—but what is the United States to do when the talks inevitably fall apart, and these pathological liars renege on their side of the bargain? The isg report does not lay out detailed, definite and strong physical repercussions. So what’s to stop Iran, Syria, and even Iraq from not breaking their end of any bargain?

On that day in 1938, it seemed Chamberlain had achieved the unachievable. He had secured peace on the Continent by gaining the promises of the testy German chancellor—and all through rhetoric. Peace had been realized without a single shot being fired. Adding to the sweetness of the day for Chamberlain was the knowledge that he had proven Winston Churchill—his “war-mongering” arch-nemesis—wrong. For years Chamberlain had been tormented by Churchill’s warnings about the mounting force and motivation of Germany and the need for Britain to build its military. Surely Chamberlain’s accomplishments at the Munich conference would prove to Churchill that military force was unnecessary for securing peace. Or so Chamberlain thought.

Less than a year after that crowning moment in the life of Neville Chamberlain, the world experienced a crowning moment of its own. On Sept. 1, 1939, Hitler flouted the non-aggression pact, fired up the engines of his military, and ignited World War ii by rumbling eastward into Poland. Two days later, when France and Britain declared war on Germany, Chamberlain diplomacy was pronounced officially dead. The only solution was action.

The lesson is, diplomacy not underpinned by threat of action is fruitless, even dangerous. Rather than gain peace, Chamberlain diplomacy serves only to strengthen the enemy and precipitate conflict. After signing the non-aggression pact in Munich in 1938, Hitler returned to Germany and stoked the already hot fires of German industry in order to churn out more planes, more tanks and more rifles. Chamberlain’s diplomacy armed Hitler with more time.

It wasn’t until the day France and Britain declared war on Germany that Hitler was actually made to pay for his actions. By this time, it was too late to prevent World War ii.

Consider the outcome of events had Chamberlain underpinned his diplomacy with action—had Hitler been made to suffer a physical penalty for his actions during the 1930s. How powerful could Hitler’s military have grown if Britain stepped in and punished Germany for its war-mongering in the 1930s? Churchill labeled World War ii “the Unnecessary War,” simply because it could have been prevented with firm action at virtually any time during the early 1930s.

Consider an analogy. I’m fairly good about not exceeding the speed limit when I’m driving. Why? Not because a police officer could pull me over and give me a verbal lashing. The reason I try not to speed is that the police officer will likely write me a ticket, which could in turn drive up the cost of my insurance. I try not to speed more out of fear for the physical penalty for speeding than the possibility of a tongue-lashing. It’s the threat of punishment that gives weight and importance to the policeman’s correction.

Diplomacy comprised solely of words and conversation is little more than idle chit-chat. This was the Chamberlain form of diplomacy. This is the form of diplomacy touted by many Western leaders and the mainstream media today.

Speaking to an audience in New Hampshire recently, Democratic senator and possible presidential candidate Joseph Biden condemned further military involvement in Iraq and said the solution to Iraq’s problems lies in political dialogue. The Middle East is seething with problems for America right now. Israel is facing a three-front war from Syria in the Golan Heights, Hezbollah in Lebanon, and Hamas in the Gaza Strip. Syria and Iran are pushing for the downfall of the moderate, U.S.-friendly government of Lebanon. Iraq is on the verge of disintegrating. Like Germany in the 1930s, every sign says war is about to surge across the Middle East.

But like Chamberlain, many American and British leaders believe the solutions lie in conversation and negotiation. Yank the troops out, and let’s sit down at the negotiating table with Iran and Syria, the reasoning goes.

The result is that we are moving into an era when the enemies of Western civilization simply do not fear consequences for their actions. Hence, Hezbollah launches war against Israel; Hamas does everything but; North Korea freely tests long-range missiles and nuclear weapons; Iran spurns international pressure to refrain from doing the same; Iraqi and Afghan insurgents brazenly attack Western forces.

Time has proven that these evil forces cannot be talked into giving up their destructive agendas. But the general policy in international bodies—and in American politics, with a couple of brief exceptions—is still to forego action for the sake of talk, indefinitely. In October, Dr. George Friedman from Stratfor Systems discussed American diplomacy in the event of the Democrats gaining more influence in the government, which they did. “Diplomacy without a realistic threat of significant action,” he said, “in the event that diplomacy fails, is just empty chatter.” That statement summarizes American foreign policy today. When it comes to problems such as Iran’s involvement in Iraq, the policy of the American government is little more than empty chatter—conversations are not underpinned by action. Thus, the diplomacy carries very little weight.

Theodore Roosevelt was the first U.S. president to see that America had the potential to be a world power. And Mr. Roosevelt knew that effective diplomacy—words underpinned, if necessary, by action—was key to becoming a great nation. Speaking at the Naval War College in Newport on June 2, 1897, Mr. Roosevelt said, “Diplomacy is utterly useless when there is no force behind it. The diplomat is the servant, not the master, of the soldier. There are higher things in this life than the soft and easy enjoyment of material comfort. It is through strife, or the readiness for strife, that a nation must win greatness.” Mr. Roosevelt made that comment at the dawn of American greatness. And the truth of his statement has never been more evident than in our danger-fraught world: In today’s world, survival is won “through strife, or the readiness for strife.”

Stop and consider the end result of Chamberlain’s form of diplomacy. When the British pm stepped onto the tarmac that September day in 1938, the last thing that had been secured for Europe was peace. The only thing awarded to the Continent that day was time: The people had 11 more months of peace—while Hitler had 11 more months of preparation—followed by what was an even bloodier and more lethal war.

Today, if America’s politicians and media experts continue to tout the Chamberlain form of diplomacy, the end result will be the same. Words without action may buy time, but they will not stop the inevitable: the eruption of World War iii.