NATO and Iran to cooperate to defeat Taliban?

NATO says members may use Iran for Afghan supplies
By SLOBODAN LEKIC – 13 hours ago

KABUL (AP) — NATO would not oppose individual member nations making deals with Iran to supply their forces in Afghanistan as an alternative to using increasingly risky routes from Pakistan, the alliance’s top military commander said Monday.
Gen. John Craddock’s comments came just days after NATO’s secretary general, Jaap de Hoop Scheffer, urged the U.S. and other members of the Western military alliance to engage with Iran to combat Taliban militants in Afghanistan.
“Those would be national decisions. Nations should act in a manner that is consistent with their national interest and with their ability to resupply their forces,” Craddock, an American who is NATO’s supreme allied commander, told The Associated Press. “I think it is purely up to them.”
Securing alternative routes to landlocked Afghanistan has taken on added urgency this year as the United States prepares to double its troop numbers there to 60,000 to battle a resurgent Taliban eight years after the U.S.-led invasion.
It also comes at a time when the main supply corridor through neighboring Pakistan is becoming increasingly dangerous as insurgents attack convoys that supply the foreign troops in Afghanistan.
Some political and military leaders have hinted at the need for closer cooperation with the government in Iran over the war in Afghanistan, where some 70,000 NATO and U.S. troops are currently trying to beat back the resurgent Taliban.
The United States has viewed Iran’s role in Afghanistan with suspicion, although the Islamic Republic has a long history of opposing Taliban rule.
U.S. officials have previously alleged that Iranian-made weapons and explosive devices were finding their way in the hands of insurgents in Afghanistan. But such criticism has been muted recently as President Barack Obama’s administration tries to set a new tone in relations with Iran.
Some experts suggest that nations with good relations with Iran such as France, Germany and Italy may try to set up an alternate supply route to western Afghanistan via Char Bahar, a port in southeastern Iran.
“NATO is looking at flexible, alternate routing. I think that is healthy,” Craddock said, when asked about the possibility of using Iranian territory for supply.
“Options are a good thing, choices are a good thing, flexibility in military operations is essential,” he said. “What nations will do is up to them,” he said, without elaborating.
Craddock’s comments came after U.S. Central Command chief Gen. David Petraeus said last month that America had struck deals with Russia and several Central Asian states close to or bordering Afghanistan to allow supplies to pass through their territory.
U.S. and NATO forces in Afghanistan get up to 75 percent of “non-lethal” supplies such as food, fuel and building materials from shipments that cross Pakistan.

google.com/hostednews/ap/art … wD963JNNO5

Interesting, seems NATO is finally coming to terms with the reality that sending supplies through Taliban controlled NW Pakistan is not such a good idea and that Iran has a genuine desire to see the Taliban and Al Queda quashed too.
Interesting also that Iran would be cooperating with the United States instead of getting attacked by it. I can’t believe I used to think that the only enemy of Al Quaeda was the United States. :aiyo: I take comfort in the fact that I wasn’t the only one, though.

[quote=“trebuchet”]
Interesting, seems NATO is finally coming to terms with the reality that sending supplies through Taliban controlled NW Pakistan is not such a good idea and that Iran has a genuine desire to see the Taliban and Al Queda quashed too.
Interesting also that Iran would be cooperating with the United States instead of getting attacked by it. I can’t believe I used to think that the only enemy of Al Quaeda was the United States. :aiyo: I take comfort in the fact that I wasn’t the only one, though.[/quote]

Yes be comfort in the fact that ignorance about Al Qaeda’s: charter, their oft stated purpose (online, in the news, in youtube videos), and their specific branch’s beliefs is easier to maintain than simply reading to rid yourself it. FFS, they hate Shiite Muslims almost as much as they hate Americans.

It’s both a positive and a negative to recognize Iran’s role in this matter. While it will help guarantee the NATO supplies get there, it legitimizes Iran’s role in it’s neighbors affairs. That makes it more difficult to negotiate with their support of Hezbollah, Hamas, and Shiite militias in Iraq because we legitimized their help with Afghanistan. It might help with getting them to stop the nuclear enrichment program, since we started building a foundation of mutual assistance, but will it help in stopping their development and deployment of anti-ship missiles in the Persian Gulf?

There is more at stake than just Al Qaeda. Is Iran willing to step back from their denouncements, and material support, for the destruction of Israel? That’s an equally important stance as the support of a non Taliban government in Afghanistan.

[quote=“lbksig”][quote=“trebuchet”]
Interesting, seems NATO is finally coming to terms with the reality that sending supplies through Taliban controlled NW Pakistan is not such a good idea and that Iran has a genuine desire to see the Taliban and Al Queda quashed too.
Interesting also that Iran would be cooperating with the United States instead of getting attacked by it. I can’t believe I used to think that the only enemy of Al Quaeda was the United States. :aiyo: I take comfort in the fact that I wasn’t the only one, though.[/quote]

Yes be comfort in the fact that ignorance about Al Qaeda’s: charter, their oft stated purpose (online, in the news, in youtube videos), and their specific branch’s beliefs is easier to maintain than simply reading to rid yourself it. FFS, they hate Shiite Muslims almost as much as they hate Americans.

It’s both a positive and a negative to recognize Iran’s role in this matter. While it will help guarantee the NATO supplies get there, it legitimizes Iran’s role in it’s neighbors affairs. That makes it more difficult to negotiate with their support of Hezbollah, Hamas, and Shiite militias in Iraq because we legitimized their help with Afghanistan. It might help with getting them to stop the nuclear enrichment program, since we started building a foundation of mutual assistance, but will it help in stopping their development and deployment of anti-ship missiles in the Persian Gulf?

There is more at stake than just Al Qaeda. Is Iran willing to step back from their denouncements, and material support, for the destruction of Israel? That’s an equally important stance as the support of a non Taliban government in Afghanistan.[/quote]

At least I am admitting I’ve been ignorant. Not saying you are, but I think my admitting that I’ve been too busy Bush-Bashing to really be aware of anything else is a step in the right direction. Most of my friends are still living the glory days of Bush-Bashing. They probably still think that the USA is going to nuke Iran any day now. In fact, I KNOW that they do.

Anyway, I never thought Iran was that bad but what do I know.
I don’t care about a non-Taliban government in Afghanistan. I feel bad for the women of Afghanistan but I think the situation is hopeless there. The Taliban can have it for all I care. Don’t they deserve a homeland, like Isreal? If Israel can have a homeland why not the Taliban? I can see their side.

[quote=“trebuchet”]
I don’t care about a non-Taliban government in Afghanistan. I feel bad for the women of Afghanistan but I think the situation is hopeless there. The Taliban can have it for all I care. Don’t they deserve a homeland, like Isreal? If Israel can have a homeland why not the Taliban? I can see their side.[/quote]

Those poor devils.
How about Antarctica?

Do all political movements deserve a “homeland” in your opinion?

Give me a call in about a hundred years when Iran has the ability to threaten the U.S. militarily. Until then Iran and Israel are just two more podunk countries out there like Pakistan and India who can’t get along and nothing that anyone else does is ever going to change that. They’re just going to have to work it out for themselves. If you want to be part of that circle jerk for some reason then more power to you. Just keep your jingoistic, hare-brained propaganda to yourself if you don’t mind.

Do all political movements deserve a “homeland” in your opinion?[/quote]

Deserve is the wrong word. Put “want” or “demand” in your sentence and I’d agree with it.

i used the word in reference to Israelis because they use it themselves.

So say the British National Party decided they wanted a homeland, that would be ok with you?