Afghan War Supplies May Come Via Iran

[Omar1984]

NATO says members may use Iran for Afghan supplies

By SLOBODAN LEKIC

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.

The Associated Press: NATO says members may use Iran for Afghan supplies

U.S. trying to make Iran its key ally? I wonder what America's buddy Israel will say about this...

 

[must7]

It would be a pity if Iran allows this as Pakistan has seen terrorism from every form in allowing these supplies lines, once Iran allows, it will also get involved in the problem and the West would exploit both the countries against each other ...

 

[Omar1984]

It would be a pity if Iran allows this as Pakistan has seen terrorism from every form in allowing these supplies lines, once Iran allows, it will also get involved in the problem and the West would exploit both the countries against each other ...

True. Many Iranians I've talked to in U.S., say its the west who made Iraq and Iran go to war with each other. Pakistan already has India next door, we never had problems with either Iran or China, and relations with Afghanistan before Bush's invasion was always good. I'm afraid the West is trying to create more and more problems for Pakistan each year.

 

[acer]

True. Many Iranians I've talked to in U.S., say its the west who made Iraq and Iran go to war with each other. Pakistan already has India next door, we never had problems with either Iran or China, and relations with Afghanistan before Bush's invasion was always good. I'm afraid the West is trying to create more and more problems for Pakistan each year.

How will this be a problem for pakistan or against the intrest of pakistan?
Can some one enlighten me..

 

[A.Rahman]

without reading article ...Does it talks about US invading Iran?

 

[waraich66]

I think that is why Pakistan is on top of US target list now not iran :

Internally Iran and US have understanding ,enemy of enemy is my friend: LOL

 

[metalfalcon]

Yeah, Iran will be a good idea for Americans, USA is asking for Help from those people who are BLOOD thirsty for Americans.

There is no wall or No road in Iran where you wont Find " Death To America " Slogan.

I salute American Think Tanks they are Doing a great Job and are coming up with some really nice Ideas .

 

[Omar1984]

Yeah, Iran will be a good idea for Americans, USA is asking for Help from those people who are BLOOD thirsty for Americans.

There is no wall or No road in Iran where you wont Find " Death To America " Slogan.

I salute American Think Tanks they are Doing a great Job and are coming up with some really nice Ideas .

You're right. Iranians wont take crap from U.S. Iranian president is too bold, Pakistan also needs a bold president.

 

[metalfalcon]

You're right. Iranians wont take crap from U.S. Iranian president is too bold, Pakistan also needs a bold president.

I don't know which WEED these American Think Tanks Smoke before coming up with strange and foolish ideas like these, I really don't understand why someone is till keeping them on Payroll even after current economic crisis or Recession. These people should be the first ones to get rid off.

 

[batmannow]

Afghan War Supplies May Come Via Iran
February 03, 2009
Associated Press

KABUL - 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.

 

[maximus]

Desperate lot... LOL

 

[ajpirzada]

iran will be the best possible alternate. this will be gud for iran as well. she can exploit this and carry on with her neuclear programe. same to wat pak did during 1980's. by the time war was over, we had our war heads.

 

[Jihad]

Desperate lot... LOL

And I thought Iran was part of the axis of "evil"..?

 

[waraich66]

Enemy of enemy is my friend ,Iran had differences with Talaban that why will support US in Afghanistan.
India and US need safe and cheap corridor which iran can only now provide.

 

[maximus]

Kyrgyzstan Says It Will Close U.S. Base

By ELLEN BARRY and MICHAEL SCHWIRTZ
Published: February 3, 2009

MOSCOW — In Moscow to seek financial support, the president of Kyrgyzstan, Kurmanbek Bakiyev, on Tuesday announced that a decision to close a U.S. air base in his country — a decision that will seriously hamper U.S. efforts in Afghanistan.

Mr. Bakiyev arrived in Moscow under pressure to ease economic troubles in Kyrgyzstan, which is heavily in debt to Russia and dependent on remittances from migrant workers. President Dmitri A. Medvedev said Russia would extend a $2 billion loan and $150 million in aid to Kyrgyzstan, which Mr. Bakiyev hailed as “serious and important support.”

At a press conference, Mr. Bakiyev said the U.S. had not paid Kyrgyzstan enough in return for the use of the base – and expressed anger over a 2006 case in which an American serviceman shot and killed a Kyrgyz truck driver on the base. The American left the country, against official protest.

“How can we speak of independence and sovereignty if we cannot enforce the law on the territory of our own country?” he said, at a press conference. “All this has given rise to a negative attitude to the base in Manas. And that is why the government has made such a decision.”

Geoff Morrell, the Pentagon press secretary, on Tuesday called Manas “a hugely important” airbase for the United States. The base has served as an air hub and refueling and transit point for NATO efforts in Afghanistan, and U.S. officials have several times intervened when Kyrgyz officials considered shutting it.

During negotiations this summer, State Department spokesman Sean McCormack said the U.S. would pay more than $150 million in assistance and compensation for the base. At the time, a government statement said the United States had contributed more than $850 million to support democracy, economic development, aid projects and security in the Kyrgyz Republic since its independence from the Soviet Union.

NATO’s special representative to the area, Robert Simmons, spent Monday and Tuesday meeting with officials in Bishkek, telling reporters the site was “vital.”

At the press conference, Mr. Bakiyev said Washington had ignored requests for more money.

“Eight years have passed,” he said. “We have repeatedly raised with the United States the matter of economic compensation for the existence of the base in Kyrgyzstan, but we have not been understood.”

The base was opened in 2001 with Moscow’s blessing, but Russian leaders were increasingly irritated by the continuing presence of American troops there. It was not clear whether Russian officials had pressed Bishkek to end the agreement.

To Russians, the longstanding U.S. presence at Manas suggested ambitions “to strengthen its position in this region” – against Moscow’s and Beijing’s interests, said Andronik Migranyan, an analyst at the Institute of Democracy and Cooperation, a Russian think-tank based in New York.

“The American government is involved in many things that Russia does not like, and this is something of a bargaining chip,” he said.

Mr. Migranyan said friction over the air base will become “become a serious impediment to Russian-American relations” if Mr. Obama follows through on his plans to beef up the U.S. presence in Afghanistan. He added, however, that there was likely room to negotiate.

“If president Obama halts the construction of elements of a missile defense system in the Czech Republic and Poland; if there are broader discussions on global security, if negotiations start on START I; and many other issues, then Russia will support the United States in Afghanistan,” he said.

Kyrgyzstan’s close relations with the United States have long unsettled Russia and China, which both have military interests in the region.

In 2005, the country appeared to move further into Washington’s orbit after a popular uprising, supported in part by the United States, toppled the corrupt and increasingly authoritarian government of Askar A. Akayev, sending the president fleeing across the border. The bloodless coup was part of a wave of popular revolts, known as colored revolutions, that remain a source of anger and suspicion among Russian officials, who consider them Washington-hatched schemes meant to undermine Russia’s influence in the region.

Similar uprisings in Georgia and Ukraine ushered in governments that quickly sought to shut out Moscow’s influence in favor of stronger ties with the West. Kyrgyzstan, however, has often sought to strike a balance among Washington, Moscow and Beijing. The government has allowed Russia to maintain a military base on Kyrgyz soil and is a member, along with China, Russia and three other Central Asian countries, of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization, a security alliance.

Upon his election in 2005, Mr. Bakiyev vowed to pursue an independent foreign policy, saying that Kyrgyzstan would not be “a place for the fulfillment of someone else’s geopolitical interests.”

Source: FT.com / World - Kyrgyzstan to shut US military base

Another blow to US designs...