A recent L.A. Times opinion piece, by leading neoconservative Joshua Muravchik, begins with a blunt four-word sentence: "We must bomb Iran." A senior administration official quoted by Reuters put it more obliquely, "inevitably people will have to look at the question of preemption". Certainly momentum towards war with Iran has been blunted by the election results and the situation in Iraq. But experts agree that the administration is still considering the most likely military scenario: a few days of air strikes designed to set back Iran's nuclear program.

It is critical that Congress call for forceful diplomatic action now. They should point out that diplomacy is not simply for working with friendly nations, it is an indispensable tool for engaging difficult regimes like the one in Iran. The only way to ensure that Iran forgoes development of nuclear weapons is to engage Iran in serious bilateral negotiations that put a wide range of political, economic and diplomatic issues on the table.

The drums of war have started to bang louder in the halls of power. The House Intelligence Committee released a widely discredited report exaggerating the nuclear threat in Iran. Neo-conservative guru William Kristol, writing in the Weekly Standard, pleaded with the administration to oppose "this act of Iranian aggression with a military strike against Iranian nuclear facilities."

Are we in the early stages of a march towards military intervention in Iran that will play out as it did with Iraq? Could the administration really be gambling again on a mix of military action and returning exiles to usher in a pro-Western democracy?

Obviously, there are differences this time around. First and foremost: the facts on the ground in Iraq. The U.S. military is bogged down in an increasingly bloody civil war taking place next door to Iran. A full-scale ground invasion of Iran is clearly “off the table” for now despite “all options on the table” rhetoric.

But Pentagon and CIA planners are examining options for an air war with the narrow goal of setting back the nuclear program. This would resemble the “shock and awe” campaign that began the Iraq war as dozens of Iranian nuclear sites are hit along with other key military and political targets. The unavoidable civilian casualties would tell a familiar and tragic story beamed to TV stations across the globe. Further damage to the already disastrously low U.S. standing in the Muslim world would ensue.

The Iranian nuclear program is too widely dispersed, too well hidden, and includes too many possible decoys for a bombing raid to set back the nuclear program for very long. As the “missing Iraq WMD’s” prove, there are significant weaknesses in the intelligence capabilities that would guide any such attacks.  Air strikes probably wouldn’t work but they would push the Iranians to accelerate their development of nuclear weapons.

So what can be done? With Iran several years away from having a nuclear weapon, there is time do the tough work of negotiation. However, the administration’s approach to negotiation has avoided direct engagement with Iran. Instead, the White House banks on indirect “coercive diplomacy” – namely convincing the U.N. Security Council to impose sanctions while using the media to broadcast rhetoric hinting at eventual military action. Given Russian and Chinese resistance to punitive sanctions and the weakness of the U.S. military position, it is difficult to understand the administration’s dedication to the coercive approach.

Congress needs to pressure the administration to roll up its sleeves and deal directly with the Iranians. Only the type of bold statesmanship associated with Nixon’s diplomatic breakthrough with China can keep Iran off the path to nuclear weapons. A wide range of issues should be put on the table: Iran’s nuclear program, terrorism, the two nations’ shared interest in stabilizing Iraq, and security guarantees that would address Iran’s wholly rational fear of an U.S. invasion.

We can have a world without Iranian nuclear weapons without resorting to military options.  But supporters of diplomatic efforts must make their voices heard. Click here to contact your member of Congress.