Those advocating for the leadership of the UN to fight terrorism cite the strained relations with long-standing allies that resulted from the invasion of Iraq without being sanctioned by the UN as a major setback to the nation. Following their perspective that terrorism is a global problem, they believe that international cooperation will achieve better results as it will pool together diplomatic, intelligence and financial resources. Instead, if the nation goes to war against terrorism on its terms and leadership, the necessary resources for domestic protection will be diverted overseas. Those supporting forceful and aggressive mean opine that when the US acts on its own, it will bypass the difficulties associated with seeking international cooperation, which often takes place while the nation’s vulnerability to terrorist attacks increases. Preemptive measures, they propose, are the best way to work without worrying about different political motivations or constraints presented by potential international partners. This stems from their notion that there are conventions already in place by the UN against terrorism but they have largely been ineffective or unenforceable.This paper supports a diplomatic approach towards addressing the terrorist menace. It is imperative for the measures adopted by the US to reflect the nation’s democracy and ethics. It is true that 9/11 attacks sent a message of vulnerability to Americans, in their own country, that they had not experienced in over five decades.