It’s a fair question, and other former Israeli officials are pressing further, arguing that Israel should pursue peace with Syria, its last bordering state with which it does not have a peace agreement. Among officials urging Washington to back diplomacy with Syria are former Israeli foreign ministry and intelligence official David Kimche and former Israeli foreign ministry director-general Alon Liel, who had been pursuing a track-two dialogue mediated by Turkey until Washington pressured the Israeli government to cut off the channel. “One of the reasons that I believe we should explore the possibility of speaking with Syria on an official level is that this body needs oxygen,” Liel told me in February in Washington. “We need a real process, and the Syrians are open to do it.”

Of course, the ultimate rejection of Washington’s non-engagement policy would be dialogue with Iran. Few Israeli officials express great optimism that such talks would go far in persuading Iran to curtail its nuclear program, but that isn’t preventing some Israeli experts from quietly making the case. “Both the United States and Iran have made each other giant enemies, and it will be very difficult for Iranians to retreat from anti-American rhetoric,” says Tel Aviv University’s David Menashri, one of Israel’s foremost Iran experts. But dialogue is a “prerequisite for serious pressure. Iran should know that America is sincere in offering dialogue.”

Though the Bush administration seems unlikely to do a “Nixon goes to China” with Iran at this late date, in some isolated cases it does appear to be at least flirting with a different approach. Recent weeks have seen numerous reports of indirect proximity talks and back-channel diplomacy between Israel and Syria, on the one hand, and between Israel and the Palestinian Islamist militant group Hamas, on the other. In both cases, Washington’s role is curious, officially condemning calls for any sort of dialogue with Hamas while at the same time, seemingly tacitly endorsing Egypt’s role as a cease-fire broker between Israel and Hamas.

Then two weeks ago, after numerous regional press reports of Syria-Israel peace feelers, came news that Washington has withdrawn a long-held veto on Israeli talks with Syria’s Bashar al-Assad regime, which are being mediated by Turkey. U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice confirmed as much in a recent interview with an Arabic-language paper. “We do not wish to stand in the way of any attempt to achieve peace between Israel and its neighbors, including Syria,” Rice told Asharq al-Awsat last week. “If the two sides wished to exert an effort for peace, the United States would give its blessing and back these efforts.” Until recently, the Bush administration had reportedly objected to such talks with Syria.

Such hints aside, most Israeli experts in favor of engagement remain pessimistic that the Bush administration will change course in any meaningful sense, particularly when it comes to Hamas and Iran. “I don’t see it,” says Halevy. “Just a few days ago, Rice made strong statements that Hamas is a terrorist organization.” Only time will tell if the Bush administration is either interested or capable of pivoting so late in the game. But what is undeniably true is that there isn’t much time. Already, like other regional actors, this handful of Israeli security experts is anticipating new leadership in Washington. They have already begun to shift their campaign from the outgoing administration to its successor. As that happens, the post-Bush era has, in some sense, unofficially begun.