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 majesty of rhetoric, and 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.” Chamberlain had just returned from the conference in Munich, where he had convinced Hitler to curb his aggression. The power of rhetoric and negotiation had prevailed; the clenched fist of war had been stayed.

Or so it seemed.

We all know what happened next: The catastrophe that was the Second World War erupted!

If you know anything about pre-war times, you know that Neville Chamberlain-style diplomacy was partly to blame for World War ii. Evil forces on the Continent spent most of the 1930s spoiling for war. But Neville Chamberlain and British peaceniks believed the solution to the tension was diplomacy comprised solely of dialogue, negotiation and compromise.

We are reliving the 1930s today. Evil leaders the world over are creating a vortex that will suck the world into war. But the leaders of Anglo-America—particularly the new president-elect of the United States—are planning to solve the problem in the same manner Neville Chamberlain tried—that is, through diplomacy devoid of definitive action.

Will it work? History screams at us that it will not!

Consider Iran.

For years now, Tehran and Damascus have proven, 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.

How has Barack Obama proposed that the American government counter Tehran’s intentions? Through diplomacy alone. Obama’s website proudly states that he “supports tough, direct presidential diplomacy with Iran without preconditions.” He and his party firmly believe that talk is the solution to the heated tensions between America and Iran. Such pacifist thinking bleeds from the mainstream media as well. Appeasement has become the policy of the day.

In the report produced by the Iraq Study Group (isg) in late 2006, the authors wrote, “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, which was supported for the most part by Mr. Obama, talks extensively about launching a new “diplomatic offensive” aimed at Iran, Syria and every other party with an interest in Baghdad, but it says little about underpinning these diplomatic efforts with threat of specific actions.

If America engages Ahmadinejad and Assad in conversation, what is it to do when the talks inevitably fall apart and these pathological liars renege on their side of the bargain? Neither Barack Obama nor the isg report lay out definite, strong repercussions.

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 signature moment in Chamberlain’s life, the world experienced a signature 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 only strengthens the enemy and precipitates 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.

By the time France and Britain declared war on Germany, it was too late to prevent World War ii.

Consider the outcome of events had Chamberlain underpinned his diplomacy with action. How powerful could Hitler’s military have grown if Britain had responded to Germany’s 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? Well, one major reason is that I know I could be pulled over by a police officer and fined, which could in turn drive up the cost of my insurance. Imagine if the only ramification for speeding was a tongue-lashing and an eloquent speech on why not to speed. In most cases that wouldn’t be enough to prevent us from speeding. It’s the threat of tangible punishment that gives weight and importance to the policeman’s correction and moves us to drive within the speed limit.

Diplomacy comprised solely of words and conversation is little more than idle chit-chat. This was the Chamberlain form of diplomacy. It’s also the Obama style of diplomacy!

Speaking to an audience in New Hampshire in 2006, vice-president-elect 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. Israel faces the possibility of a three-front war with Syria in the Golan Heights, Hezbollah in Lebanon, and Hamas in the Gaza Strip. Iran remains a central factor in Iraq. Like Germany in the 1930s, every sign says war is about to surge across the Middle East. But like Chamberlain, America’s current and incoming leadership believes 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 the enemies of Western civilization today simply do not fear consequences for their actions. Hence, Russia invades Georgia; Hezbollah launches war against Israel; Hamas lobs rockets at Sderot; 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 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 forgo action for the sake of talk, indefinitely. In October 2006, Dr. George Friedman from Stratfor Systems discussed American diplomacy in the event of the Democrats gaining more influence in the government. “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.

Theodore Roosevelt was the first U.S. president to see that America had the potential to be a world power. And he knew what type of diplomacy 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 can 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 free of conflict—while Hitler had 11 more months of preparation for war.

History tells Americans they ought to fear Obama-style 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.