David Ignatius has been one of the most consistent supporters of dialogue with Iran. In 2006, he wrote:

There’s no guarantee that a policy of engagement will work. The Iranian regime’s desire to acquire nuclear weapons may be so unyielding that Tehran and Washington will remain on a collision course. But America and its allies will be in a stronger position for responding to Iranian calls for dialogue. Openness isn’t a concession by America, it’s a strategic weapon.

But today he reveals how skeptical he really is. Yes – he still wants dialogue, but the “there’s no guarantee” that it could work has been changed to something even less hopeful:

It’s easy to criticize the Bush record on Iran. But anyone who thinks it will be easy for Obama to make a breakthrough hasn’t been paying attention. Iran moves closer every day to becoming a nuclear-weapons power. It views America as an aggressive adversary that wants regime change, no matter what Washington says. Dialogue is worth a try, but Obama and his advisers should start thinking about what they will do if negotiations fail.

Ignatius offers a fair criticism of the Bush Administration for its “double failure on Iran”:

Administration hard-liners haven’t checked Tehran’s drive to acquire nuclear-weapons technology, and moderates haven’t engaged Iran in negotiation and dialogue.

But other than the call for dialogue and his well-established stance against aggressive action – “Military action would be irrational for both sides,” Ignatius doesn’t offer much. It is hard to tell what he’d like Obama to do. And even more importantly – his article skips the most relevant question: what price should the U.S. be willing to pay in order to stop Iran from cruising toward its goal of nuclear weaponry? So far, the answer has been “no price”: The U.S. is willing to try international sanctions and dialogue. Ignatius’s skepticism is well-founded: Defeating a determined rival with such approaches is not likely to happen.