ALERT NATO ,U.S., seek supply route in Iran to Afghanistan

truthseeker · Jun 2, 2009

I just cant see US troops being safe in Iran. I find it hard to understand Iran letting this happen. I also cant see Israel attacking with US troops moving through. They better act quickly if they are going to.

http://mdn.mainichi.jp/mdnnews/national/news/20090601p2a00m0na004000c.html

[FONT=Verdana,Arial]Iran -- NATO and the United States are both seeking a supply route in Iran for troops engaged in the war on terror in Afghanistan, several sources revealed to the Mainichi on Sunday. NATO has filed an official request with Iran for a supply route, and the U.S. is in unofficial talks with Iran for the same.[/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana,Arial] [/FONT]

[FONT=Verdana,Arial]Foreign forces see a possible passage through Iran as highly desirable, as delivery trucks and supply terminals for foreign forces have been the target of escalating attacks by the Taliban along Pakistan supply routes since November 2008. [/FONT]

[FONT=Verdana,Arial]Currently, more than 70 percent of supplies to NATO and U.S. troops in Afghanistan travel through two overland routes in Pakistan. Although Russia approved a route for transporting non-military supplies through Central Asia, Kyrgyzstan announced in February its plans to shut down Manas Air Base, a major hub for U.S. forces. [/FONT]

[FONT=Verdana,Arial]Securing supply routes to provide ammunition and military vehicles to foreign troops -- especially in light of some 20,000 additional U.S. troops slated to be sent to Afghanistan before this September -- is a make-or-break issue for foreign military operations in the country. [/FONT]

[FONT=Verdana,Arial]According to sources, NATO approached Iran through diplomatic channels about opening an overland supply route, and the U.S. is also in preliminary discussions with Iran. [/FONT]

[FONT=Verdana,Arial]Three overland routes starting in Chabahar and Bandar Abbas are under consideration. Sources say that whether such an arrangement comes to fruition is ultimately up to top officials in both governments. [/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana,Arial][/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana,Arial]The realization of a stable supply route -- the lifeline of the war on terrorism -- could prove to be a breakthrough in restoring U.S.-Iran relations.[/FONT]

Donner9x · Jun 2, 2009

I think the potential big story here would be the fact that if we are negotiating with Iran for something which is in our interest, what would we be willing to give them in return for that something...

Can anyone say "Israel is F-ed"?

Foothiller · Jun 2, 2009

I believe this move shows how desperate the supply situation in Afghanistan is becoming.

The tenuous supply situation in Afghanistan puts our troops at great risk.

We are going to rely on Iran to ensure safe delivery of critical supplies? WTF?

The Iranians are probably as confused by this as you and I are.

Our leaders seem unwilling to learn or accept historical lessons about attempting to occupy and pacify Afghanistan.

:banghead:

conundrum · Jun 2, 2009

Anyone here up on the pipelines over there? Russia's part? China's part? ours?

I know Abbas was trained in Moscow. This is all starting to look like we changed partners?? And Europe too?? All over oil & gas.

someone · Jun 2, 2009

black is white and white is black

i can't believe after all this time you guys still seem to think that the goverment in Iran is not a freind of the us gov.

for the same reasons we support other iron rulers (sadam, surtho, piniche, and so on) CONTROL

goverment controled by small groups of people are easier to manipulate then those who are run by large groups of peoples.

I know Abbas was trained in Moscow. This is all starting to look like we changed partners?? And Europe too?? All over oil & gas.

huh? only the propoganda changed.

it is not over oil and gas it is over control.

oil and gas are control points like water and food, land or religion.

SarahLynn · Jun 2, 2009

So Obama will throw Israel under the bus to cozy up to the Iranians in order to maintain a supply route through Iran to Afghanistan.

I can see Israel being set up here. Israel attacks Iran, Iran refuses to allow the US the supply route through its territory, and Israel takes the blame, while the countries condemning Israel for taking out the Iranian nuclear threat secretly smile in relief that Iran is neutralized.

SarahLynn · Jun 2, 2009

someone said:
black is white and white is black

i can't believe after all this time you guys still seem to think that the goverment in Iran is not a freind of the us gov.

for the same reasons we support other iron rulers (sadam, surtho, piniche, and so on) CONTROL

goverment controled by small groups of people are easier to manipulate then those who are run by large groups of peoples.

I know Abbas was trained in Moscow. This is all starting to look like we changed partners?? And Europe too?? All over oil & gas.

huh? only the propoganda changed.

it is not over oil and gas it is over control.

oil and gas are control points like water and food, land or religion.

I think you've got it.

onderock · Jun 2, 2009

SarahLynn said:
So Obama will throw Israel under the bus to cozy up to the Iranians in order to maintain a supply route through Iran to Afghanistan.

I can see Israel being set up here. Israel attacks Iran, Iran refuses to allow the US the supply route through its territory, and Israel takes the blame, while the countries condemning Israel for taking out the Iranian nuclear threat secretly smile in relief that Iran is neutralized.

And what a set up it could turn out to be! Imagine Israel going ahead with plans to take out Iran, and in so doing, takes out "the supply line" of the US and NATO forces. Who would be left that *wouldn't* be against Israel at that point?

Surely, "the nations are gathered against thee" would be closer than ever! This has the trappings of one very predictable outcome, that is known to many.

---onderock---

MtnGal · Jun 2, 2009

That's why O came out with the statement that Iran may have some right to nuclear energy

dragonslayer2001 · Jun 2, 2009

Conundrum

Yes, I pointed out on TB well over two years ago that the supply lines into Afghanistan were tenuous and extremely vulnerable to being cut off in Pakistan.

When 'we' started to bomb Pakistan I argued that it was a geopolitical mistake, no matter how much we wanted it.

The two supply lines through Pakistan have been disrupted several times now in the last year, bridges bombed, vehicles blown up, supply depot captured. And none of that has been a 'major' effort on the part of the Taliban or tribal groups. A major effort would be much worse.

Russia has allowed - that non military supplies can come through the northern border - but don't forget the Georgian dust up, and how many on TB wanted all out war over it......... and they wanted US to surround Russia with missile bases.................... silly children.

It is far better to make allies of former enemies than continue to make enemies of former enemies - IF the benefits could outweigh the dangers. The neo-cons couldn't have been more incompetant than if they tried, which makes me think they WERE trying............ on purpose......... to mess things up as badly as they could.

China - the lines would be far far far too long - a major logistical nightmare even supposing they would allow it. And far too many forget that China has rattled the sword against the US far more often in the last 20 years than has either Russia or Iran. China is the 20,000 lb Chesire Cat. Not to be trusted.

If the US and Iran can come to an agreement to battle the Taliban together, AS IRAN OFFERED TO DO IMMEDIATELY AFTER 911 BEFORE THE NEO-CONS SQUASHED THE OFFER, COVERED IT UP, AND THEN DECLARED IRAN PART OF THE AXIS OF EVIL,

then our troops would have a far more stable system of supply.

Our Troops in Afghanistan are land locked. So much for the arguments of some that we were in a 'perfect' position there to strike out in all directions. Well, so was the 6th Army under Von Paulus at Stalingrad too. An NO, we cannot supply all our troops there by air either. It didn't work at Dien ben Phu, or at Stalingrad, and it won't work in a country the size of Afghanistan either.

With Pakistan being destabilized, and with North Korea inching itself into a corner where it might feel a winnable war is possible, and the financials of our country falling apart, it is now INSANE to think that Afghanistan is either winnable or desirable.

Peace with Iran may be possible. It is certainly going to be better than yet another war. Our troops in Afghanistan are in a very very poor 'position'.

SarahLynn · Jun 2, 2009

onderock said:
And what a set up it could turn out to be! Imagine Israel going ahead with plans to take out Iran, and in so doing, takes out "the supply line" of the US and NATO forces. Who would be left that *wouldn't* be against Israel at that point?

Surely, "the nations are gathered against thee" would be closer than ever! This has the trappings of one very predictable outcome, that is known to many.

---onderock---

I believe you're exactly right with this. More and more Israel's choices are being limited, and more and more nations willing to make impossible demands that would hamstring if not outright destroy Israel. The EU more frequently demands Israel accept the two state "solution":

If the about-to-be-inaugurated Netanyahu government will not commit itself to establishing a Palestinian state in the heart of the ancient Jewish homeland, said Schwarzenberg, "relations would become very difficult indeed."

"At one of our next ministerial meetings we would have to discuss what consequences the EU would draw from that. Both parties must stick to their commitments from the past: A two-state solution and all agreements reached over the past few years."

The Czech minister enthused about the new US administration’s quick effort to work towards resolving the Arab-Israel conflict.

Obama’s decisive action meant that there is now "real hope for progress in the region," he said.

Luxembourg's foreign minister, Jean Asselborn, dangled carrots before Jerusalem, saying the much discussed and hoped-for upgrading of EU-Israeli trade and political ties would be contingent on Israel achieving a peace deal with the Palestinians.

Israel has made every effort to strike such a deal. It has surrendering control of some of its most sacred and strategic historic sites, allowing the PLO to establish itself as an armed and governmental presence in these territories, offered to place some of its greatest and most sacred national treasures on the negotiating table, and repeatedly taken unprecedented “risks for peace.”

Hundreds of Jews have been murdered as a direct result of these Israeli efforts.

Nonetheless Asselborn insisted:

"We must tell the Israelis that it is not allowed to walk away from the peace process... The upgrading process was always to be viewed from the perspective of the peace process having been completed."

According to The Jerusalem Post, the EU’s foreign policy czar, Javier Solana, also recently underscored how ties with Israel could be damaged should the incoming government not commit to the two-state solution.

"Let me say very clearly that the way the European Union will relate to an [Israeli] government that is not committed to a two-state solution will be very, very different," Solana said, adding unabashedly that Europe "will be ready to do business as usual, normally, with a government in Israel that will continue talking for a two-state solution."

http://www.jnewswire.com/article/2637

conundrum · Jun 2, 2009

someone said:
black is white and white is black

i can't believe after all this time you guys still seem to think that the goverment in Iran is not a freind of the us gov.

for the same reasons we support other iron rulers (sadam, surtho, piniche, and so on) CONTROL

goverment controled by small groups of people are easier to manipulate then those who are run by large groups of peoples.

I know Abbas was trained in Moscow. This is all starting to look like we changed partners?? And Europe too?? All over oil & gas.

huh? only the propoganda changed.

it is not over oil and gas it is over control.

oil and gas are control points like water and food, land or religion.

Someone-why do you always type it like WE are the only "takers" in this world? The ME was a dusty hell on earth long before came there.

Like DS said this has been in the works and who better than who is in there now-Obama. This was long planned and it has the fingerprints of Brzezinski all over it. Afghan part II.

Abbas matters because the ME is dangling a carrot and O is taking a bite. look how he has been with Bibi-he can't wait to set Israel up.

China is THE player by proxy, Russia somewhat. Just look at Africa. :bwl:

Not saying I agree with all of it but for an in depth look, long read, wide scope see- http://eldib.wordpress.com/2009/05/15/everything-you-need-to-know-about-oil-gas-russia-china-iran-afghanistan-and-obama-pipelineistan/

denfoote · Jun 2, 2009

Donner9x said:
I think the potential big story here would be the fact that if we are negotiating with Iran for something which is in our interest, what would we be willing to give them in return for that something...

Can anyone say "Israel is F-ed"?

This actually DOES explain Obama's attitude toward Israel!!!

If Obama actually was a Bible believing born again Christian, he would know about and heed God's curse!!

Genesis 12:2-4 (New King James Version)

2 I will make you a great nation;
I will bless you
And make your name great;
And you shall be a blessing.

3 I will bless those who bless you,
And I will curse him who curses you;
And in you all the families of the earth shall be blessed.”
4 So Abram departed as the LORD had spoken to him, and Lot went with him. And Abram was seventy-five years old when he departed from Haran.

It's an open ended thing.
Abraham had nothing to do with it.
He does not have to do anything in return, which was the usual contract form in those days.
ANYBODY WHO "F's" WITH ISRAEL, EXCEPT GOD HIMSELF, GETS SMACKED DOWN!!! :smkd:

We are TOAST!!! :whistle:

mt4design · Jun 2, 2009

ds kind of nailed it for me.

How bad are things in Pakistan if we're actually trying to negotiate routes through Iran?

How would force protection work? This seems a pretty odd leap to me.

Mike

Shacknasty Shagrat · Jun 2, 2009

mt4design said:
ds kind of nailed it for me.

How bad are things in Pakistan if we're actually trying to negotiate routes through Iran?

How would force protection work? This seems a pretty odd leap to me.

Mike

Same thoughts here.
My understanding, as of yesterday, is that there is close attention being paid to the plans to get out quick, leaving all the heavy stuff behind, in one scenario. Another is fighting through to some port on the sea, probably through Pak.
What happens when Israel whacks Iran is anyones guess.
Maybe that is why Mr. Obama suddenly chose to sit in the talks between Barak and NSA Gen. Jones. Or maybe the overmatched Mr. Obama is wondering what to do when Jihadis start killing unarmed soldiers here in the US.
SS

dragonslayer2001 · Jun 2, 2009

Shack

where did you come across this bit of info?

My understanding, as of yesterday, is that there is close attention being paid to the plans to get out quick, leaving all the heavy stuff behind, in one scenario. Another is fighting through to some port on the sea, probably through Pak

dragonslayer2001 · Jun 2, 2009

readers

may be interested in reading Xenophon's March of the Ten Thousand. You can get it at any good bookstore or order it. It used to be easy to find, but I guess classical history is now out, as Roman and Greek works seem to be hard to find and need to be ordered. The book is over two thousand years old but makes stirring reading even today.

The 'webbots' came out about a year or less ago with warnings that this type of thing is going to happen to our troops in the M.E. and in Asia. I always felt very very uncomfortable with our troops in Afghanistan. I feel intuitively even more dismal about an Iranian war.

Xenophon accompanied the Ten Thousand, a large army of Greek mercenaries hired by Cyrus the Younger, who intended to seize the throne of Persia from his brother, Artaxerxes II. Though Cyrus's mixed army fought to a tactical victory at Cunaxa in Babylon (401 BC), Cyrus himself was killed in the battle, rendering the actions of the Greeks irrelevant and the expedition a failure.

Stranded deep in enemy territory, the Spartan general Clearchus and the other Greek senior officers were subsequently killed or captured by treachery on the part of the Persian satrap Tissaphernes. Xenophon, one of three remaining leaders elected by the soldiers, played an instrumental role in encouraging the Greek army of 10,000 to march north across foodless deserts and snow-filled mountain passes towards the Black Sea and the comparative security of its Greek shoreline cities. Now abandoned in northern Mesopotamia, without supplies other than what they could obtain by force or diplomacy, the 10,000 had to fight their way northwards through Corduene and Armenia, making ad hoc decisions about their leadership, tactics, provender and destiny, while the King's army and hostile natives constantly barred their way and attacked their flanks.

Ultimately this "marching republic" managed to reach the shores of the Black Sea at Trapezus (Trebizond), a destination they greeted with their famous cry of joyous exultation on the mountain of Madur in Surmene : "thalatta, thalatta", "the sea, the sea!"[3] "The sea" meant that they were at last among Greek cities, but it was not the end of their journey, which included a period fighting for Seuthes II of Thrace, and ended with their recruitment into the army of the Spartan general Thibron. This is the story Xenophon relates in this book, in language of such directness and simplicity that it has served ever since as the student's first text in Greek.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anabasis_(Xenophon)

Description
Audio Length: 7 hours and 35 min.
Average Customer Rating:
Version: Unabridged

Translated by W. E. D. Rouse, The March of the Ten Thousand is one of the most admired and widely read pieces of ancient literature to come down to us. Xenophon employs a very simple, straightforward style to describe what is probably the most exciting military adventure ever undertaken. When Cyrus, brother to the Great King of Persia, attempts to overthrow his feckless sibling in 401 B.C., he employs a Greek mercenary army of 10,000 hoplites as the core of his rebellious force. Xenophon, who seeks the advice of Socrates before joining, is among the common soldiers. Inexorably, Cyrus and his huge army march southward 1,500 miles from the coast of Ionia all the way to Babylon, and there give battle to Artaxerxes, the Great King. Although the battle is soon decided in favor of Cyrus, the would-be usurper is killed while in pursuit of the king. Meanwhile, the Greeks are victorious on their part of the battlefield and await the return of Cyrus and his instructions.

By the next morning, they realize that Cyrus is dead and that his allies have melted away in the night, leaving them alone trapped behind enemy lines within a few miles of the Persian capital. And only a few miles distant lies an enormous Persian army with vengeance in mind. Despair deepens when the Greek officer corps is treacherously murdered during peace talks. Alone, leaderless and hopelessly outnumbered, the Greeks nevertheless elect new officers.

Xenophon steps into the pages of history with his magnificent rallying speeches and selfless acts of courage. Follow one of history's most spirited bands of soldiers as they fight and maneuver their way through 1,500 miles of hostile territory seething with adversaries. It is an epic of courage, faith and democratic principle.
Copyright © Audio Connoisseur 2003

http://www.audible.com/adbl/store/CJProduct.jsp?productID=BK_ACON_000014

Heliobas Disciple · Jun 2, 2009

This is not 'new' news (it's been discussed on numerous threads here on TB for months - specifically the threads about being kicked out of bases in the former Soviet states). There's nothing 'new' has happened in the last few weeks that has Obama thinking this way - he's been thinking this way since he got into office.

As I've said on those other threads, it's ridiculous to sacrifice the middle eastern alliances (not only Israel, but the Sunni nation states (Saudi Arabia, UAE, Egypt, Jordan) who don't want to see a nuclear Iran) to appease Iran to save a quagmire, no-win situation in Afghanistan. Our troops are basically landlocked and if they want to make a deal with the devil (Iran) instead of just pulling them out now while they still can, then they'll get the devil to deal with later on.

Shacknasty Shagrat said:
Maybe that is why Mr. Obama suddenly chose to sit in the talks between Barak and NSA Gen. Jones. Or maybe the overmatched Mr. Obama is wondering what to do when Jihadis start killing unarmed soldiers here in the US.

He did?! Very interesting. He probably wanted to 'warn' Israel again about how he's going to give Iran nukes if they don't stop the settlments. Once again, getting his priorities wrong. :shk:

Going to have to go a-googling to read up on that.

HD

Shacknasty Shagrat · Jun 2, 2009

dragonslayer2001 said:
where did you come across this bit of info?

My understanding, as of yesterday, is that there is close attention being paid to the plans to get out quick, leaving all the heavy stuff behind, in one scenario. Another is fighting through to some port on the sea, probably through Pak

FOAF
Of course, there are thousands of contingency plans, how to attack the Vatican, counter attack an ET invasion.. and so on. The marker is how often they are dusted off, names named, current data and all.
While I personally discount the chance of such an ignominious retreat, it is interesting that others are doing their homework.
SS

dragonslayer2001 · Jun 2, 2009

Thanks

Shack.,

It is a comfort, small at best, to think that some are at least making plans if worse should come to worst.

The marker is how often they are dusted off, names named, current data and all.
While I personally discount the chance of such an ignominious retreat, it is interesting that others are doing their homework.

Follow one of history's most spirited bands of soldiers as they fight and maneuver their way through 1,500 miles of hostile territory seething with adversaries. It is an epic of courage, faith and democratic principle.

The best option would be to call it a day, declare Afghanistan not worth it, and recognize there are limits to power, and withdraw in good order. I don't think that is going to happen, and if a REAL war breaks out in Korea, then this country is in a real mess, real fubar'd, all over the M.E. and Asia.

Quite frankly, if I was wargamming this, and if the thought of using tactical nukes seemed highly unlikely in Korea, and I was either the China or N. Korea player, I would be hitting S. Korea any time now (using N. Korea by proxy of course) as I would expect Afghanistan, Pakistan, and Iraq to rise in insurrection and soak up US ability to defend everywhere. Isreal hitting Iran would just be the icing on the cake to destroy United States power for a decade if not forever. After all, throw Iran into that mess........... and you then include Syria, S. Lebanon, Hamas, and Hizbullah. Not to mention the possibility of direct involvement of China and Russia at some point, and the Gulf nations as Iran retaliates.

and you would have what both the webbots and Major Dames are saying are the probables for this year and after.

Shacknasty Shagrat · Jun 2, 2009

Apropos your wargame.
One time I actually saw what amounted to a circular firing squad.
The sanitized version of my thoughts at the time...."What are you people DOING?'
SS

Housecarl · Jun 2, 2009

dragonslayer2001 said:
Shack.,

It is a comfort, small at best, to think that some are at least making plans if worse should come to worst.

The marker is how often they are dusted off, names named, current data and all.
While I personally discount the chance of such an ignominious retreat, it is interesting that others are doing their homework.

Follow one of history's most spirited bands of soldiers as they fight and maneuver their way through 1,500 miles of hostile territory seething with adversaries. It is an epic of courage, faith and democratic principle.

The best option would be to call it a day, declare Afghanistan not worth it, and recognize there are limits to power, and withdraw in good order. I don't think that is going to happen, and if a REAL war breaks out in Korea, then this country is in a real mess, real fubar'd, all over the M.E. and Asia.

Quite frankly, if I was wargamming this, and if the thought of using tactical nukes seemed highly unlikely in Korea, and I was either the China or N. Korea player, I would be hitting S. Korea any time now (using N. Korea by proxy of course) as I would expect Afghanistan, Pakistan, and Iraq to rise in insurrection and soak up US ability to defend everywhere. Isreal hitting Iran would just be the icing on the cake to destroy United States power for a decade if not forever. After all, throw Iran into that mess........... and you then include Syria, S. Lebanon, Hamas, and Hizbullah. Not to mention the possibility of direct involvement of China and Russia at some point, and the Gulf nations as Iran retaliates.

and you would have what both the webbots and Major Dames are saying are the probables for this year and after.

One variable that an OPFOR would have to take into account would be the ROE and levels of force the political leaderships in the U.S., EU/NATO, Israel, India, South Korea and the allied Arab/GCC states would resort to under specific conditions of conflict. Betting upon an under reaction is almost a guarantee of an overreaction.

The moves being made by the Obama Administration, and the list of old guard advisers from past administrations, is showing a leaning to realpolitik both internationally and domestically that should give more pause than would be apparent from the rhetoric and stances both from the OPFOR standpoint and from current and potential erstwhile allied nation-states.

Reports/theories regarding Saudi financing and quid pro quo on access to Pakistani nuclear weapons and delivery systems alone throws a wrench into a lot of posturing by Iran, as well as does the Egyptian/Jordanian/Israeli converging security concerns (and those of the GCC States) regarding Iran and its surrogates in the form of Hezbollah, Syria and aid to Hamas/Muslim Brotherhood.

The Russian interest in continuing to stir the Iranian threat pot but not to let it boil over has as much to do with regaining influence to the south of their borders as it does with keeping oil prices up due to threats to supplies and getting Europe to switch to Russia/CIS states supplying them instead of the OPEC states, not withstanding the issues that have occurred with NG supplies this last winter, and keeping the U.S. occupied/annoyed.

The history of Russian Iranian relations is one of need on the part of Iran and convenience on the part of Russia, up to and including direct military intervention by Russia into Iran starting as early as the 1660s and as recent as the Anglo-Soviet invasion of Iran in 1941.

Heliobas Disciple · Jun 2, 2009

Shacknasty Shagrat said:
Maybe that is why Mr. Obama suddenly chose to sit in the talks between Barak and NSA Gen. Jones.

More on the meeting.

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5gIa4mt0M_aWi56fU-QHdqKhczOvQD98IS4900
(fair use applies)

Obama meets Israeli defense minister
By PHILIP ELLIOTT – 22 minutes ago

WASHINGTON (AP) — President Barack Obama on Tuesday told Israel's defense minister that Jerusalem must stop allowing West Bank settlements to grow, reiterating his stance in the hours before leaving for the Middle East on a trip to improve relations with Muslims.

Obama and Ehud Barak each left the White House in disagreement over Jewish settlements in Palestinian territory that have become a symbol of defiance against Palestinians who want their own state. Barak asked Obama to consider Israel's domestic politics and the popularity of such outposts, an Israeli official said.

The Israeli official spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss a private meeting.

Barak, a former Israeli prime minister who came close to a peace deal during President Bill Clinton's administration, met for two hours with Obama's national security adviser, Gen. Jim Jones, about their countries' public disagreement. Obama surprised Barak and joined the meeting for 12 minutes.

Obama repeated his call for Israel to stop settling on land Palestinians want for their own state. Israeli leaders have refused a wholesale end to the settlements, citing a growing population's needs to expand.

At the United Nations, Israel's Vice Prime Minister Silvan Shalom told reporters that "natural growth is needed ... and that's something that should be understood."

"We know that sometimes we can have some different views, but among friends it's always something that can be resolved. I believe that we are in the right direction," said Shalom, a former foreign minister.

Obama has said such "natural growth" settlements must also stop, breaking from his predecessor who gave them tacit approval.

The stalemate continued ahead of Obama's departure for Saudi Arabia and Egypt. Obama plans a speech about U.S.-Muslim relations in Cairo on Thursday.

Obama does not plan to visit Israel, a stalwart ally that has heard the demands from the new U.S. president and his top officials. When Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu visited Washington last month, Obama pushed him to halt settlements; Netanyahu returned to Israel and announced settlements would not stop.

Obama's push previews the long-awaited Cairo speech, which his Obama aides hoped would start to repair badly frayed relationships between the United States and Muslims and their nations and which Israeli officials planned to watch for clues as to Washington's next steps. Opinions of the United States run negative in Muslim capitals, fueled by the U.S. invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan and its longtime support of Israel.

Ahead of the speech, Obama has told interviewers he is committed to an independent Palestinian state but has not shied from the United States' deep ties to Israel. Obama's advisers hope that stance would position him to be an honest broker for both sides, particularly over settlements that were supposed to be halted under the peace plan.

The Israeli government has moved to dismantle some small settler outposts that were established without government approval. But Netanyahu has refused to rule out a complete end, as Obama has insisted.

During his meeting with Barak, Jones underscored that the United States remains committed to Israel's security, but also told Barak that his nation and the Palestinians must fulfill their commitments under a peace plan, said a U.S. official who spoke on condition of anonymity to discuss a private meeting.

Jones also told Barak both sides must take steps to improve the tone surrounding negotiations, the official said. The sharp rhetoric from Israeli and Palestinian leaders has not encouraged either side to meet requirements set out in peace agreements.

Barak planned to meet with Vice President Joe Biden on Wednesday.

ALERT NATO ,U.S., seek supply route in Iran to Afghanistan

Inactive

Thread Killer :-)

Veteran Member

Inactive

Inactive

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Has No Life - Lives on TB

Inactive

Veteran Member

Inactive

Inactive

Has No Life - Lives on TB

Has No Life - Lives on TB

Inactive

Inactive

TB Fanatic

Has No Life - Lives on TB

Inactive

Has No Life - Lives on TB

On TB every waking moment

TB Fanatic