Which path leads to peace, talk or war?

An anonymous Israeli reports that an unnamed Bush official stated that Bush and Cheney want to attack Iran before they leave office. As nauseating as that possibility is, at least the statement is hearsay. We can hope it's blatantly false.
Unfortunately, the administration's response to that rumor is a matter of record. While they denounce the Israeli's quote, they say instead:

As the President has said, no president of the United States should ever take options off the table...

Um, what about the option of talking to Iran directly? Why is that off the table? Bush and McCain claim that Obama is weak for putting that option back on the table. Yet, the White House statement continues:

... but our preference and our actions for dealing with this matter remain through peaceful diplomatic means.

That would be a lot more believable coming from someone like Obama, instead of from the people who ridicule Obama for suggesting diplomacy. The Bush/McCain policy of refusing to meet with Iran is like a gradeschooler: "Give me that! No? Fine. I'm not speaking to you anymore."
Instead, the White House ominously warns:

Permitting the world's leading sponsor of terror to possess the world's deadliest weapon would be an unforgivable betrayal of future generations. For the sake of peace, the world must not allow Iran to have a nuclear weapon.

So, it might be unforgivable if we don't start a war? The way to peace is not through war. Just look at Iraq. Now that is a betrayal of this and future generations.
Back in the 80s, Reagan was criticized by hawks for talking to Gorbachev. Like Obama, he was compared to Neville Chamberlain and labeled an "appeaser." What did that get us? It got us peace. That wasn't appeasement -- it was diplomacy. It seems to me we ought to try that again.