Today House Republicans hold a press conference on Iran – and the House will vote on a bipartisan resolution “expressing support for Iranian protesters who have been subject to violence in the days following that country’s presidential election.”

This morning brought an interesting lineup to the Washington Post’s op-ed page. Readers might have predicted Charles Krauthammer criticizing Obama’s response to events in Iran. They might have predicted a similar theme from Paul Wolfowitz — but not his examples of Ronald Reagan and George H. W. Bush, gradually shifting their positions on somewhat similar events in the Philippines in 1986 and Russia in 1991. But then there’s David Ignatius, usually pretty positive on Obama, who concludes:

President Obama was right to speak carefully about the events in Iran during the first week of protest. But it’s time for him to express his solidarity with the Iranians who are so bravely taking to the streets each day. He can do that without seeming to meddle if he chooses his words wisely . . . Obama’s agenda of “engagement” with Iran must be on hold for now. He shouldn’t renounce his offer of talks, but allow it to sit. Let the Iranians chase the West for a while; they’re the ones who need legitimacy.

I suspect engagement with Iran is becoming less popular and plausible by the day.