When venturing into the world of diplomacy, one must leave all options on the table. Some have recently decried the position of the Bush Administration to reserve the option to use military force against Iran in the event of their noncompliance. Furthermore, they claim that the very presence of a military option is anathema to diplomacy itself.

We all agree that diplomacy should be left to the diplomats. Yet, leaving them ill-equipped without all the tools necessary to advance their mission and goals, presents a precarious position in international affairs.

German historian Karl Von Clausewitz stated, "War is diplomacy by another means ." While war is humanity's greatest folly; the will of the international community, as well as, the common safety of our friends and allies across the globe requires its use when a threat gathers.

President Clinton used diplomacy to deal with North Korea's nuclear ambitions. The aftermath resulted in our present situation where the aid offered the North Koreans in the compromise was used to fulfill their weaponized nuclear ambitions. Should a similar strategy continue to be employed with North Korea, and even Iran?

When diplomacy fails, the subsequent actions should not consist of capitulation and appeasement for the sake of avoiding war. As we all know, a gathering storm should be faced before it becomes an imminent threat. The last statesmen who effected the strategy of eliminating the military option were UK Prime Ministers Stanley Baldwin and Neville Chamberlain. Their goal was peace without conditions, peace without preparedness, and peace at all cost. It ended in war.

Therefore, Iran presents a gathering threat. Our disagreements over the Iraq war should not hinder our ability to pursue actions necessary and vital to the safety of the international community. Iran has violated U.N. resolutions, international agreements, and past diplomatic treaties. When do we pursue other means? When are there consequences?

The current involvement of the EU, Russia, and China in the negotiations with Iran shows the Administration is pursuing the multilateral course it should have in Iraq. Economic and diplomatic pressure should be used, but what if Iran threatens war if those pressures are imposed just as North Korea did? North Korea made economic and diplomatic sanctions tantamount to a declaration of war, what options are left if this position continues? Iran , with the overwhelming support of our EU allies, was referred to the U.N. Security Council. Should the Council adopt the same policy espoused by the critics of the Administration and take military intervention off the table?

War should be the last resort; war should be decided on with the utmost care; war should be part of diplomacy. And in Iran's case, if diplomacy is exhausted and the will of the international community exists to extinguish a gathering threat—then war it must be. History's most damning judgment contains just two words: too late.