upper east side apartment where he had planned to live while fighting sex assault charges. but up first tonight, two breaking global challenges. the obama administration issues a new warning because of intelligence seized at osama bin laden's compound in pakistan. chris lawrence is live from the pentagon with more on that. chris? >> reporter: well, john, what we've been able to determine is that al qaeda thought the best way to hijack some of these oil tankers and really hurt oil and natural gas interests was to hijack one of the oil tankers and then detonate their explosives from the inside. they also recommended using scout ships to observe how these oil tankers move and even doing trial runs. it says that their ultimate goal was to plunge the u.s. into some sort of economic crisis by disrupting oil supplies for years to come. and based on all the intelligence that the navy s.e.a.l.s carried out of bin laden's compound, the homeland security department and the fbi issued this warning to police departments and oil companies across the u.s. because what they found is there's a continuing emphasis by al qaeda through this year to target those oil and natural gas interests. john? >> and so chris, what specifically is being done now because of the warning? >> reporter: well, because they don't have actionable intelligence, john, nertin othe words, they don't have a specific target on a specific date, that's why they didn't go as far as issuing a full alert. so what they're doing is warning their partners saying remember those random screenings, remember to instruct people how to report suspicious activity, and also remember to go over your protocols and instruct your people. stay vigilant because we know the targets are out there. >> chris lawrence tonight live at the pentagon. president obama and the israeli prime minister benjamin netanyahu come face to face at the white house. >> obviously, there are some differences between us in the precise formulations and language. and that's going to happen between friends. >> the israeli leader is described by close allies as seething at the president's public push for peace talks with the palestinians to resume around the framework of israel returning to its 1967 borders. and while the president steered clear of the specifics of that dust-up in their joint appearance, the prime minister addressed it head on. >> remember that before 1967 israel was all of nine miles wide. it was half the width of the washington beltway. and these were not the boundaries of peace. they were the boundaries of repeated wars because the attack on israel was so attractive for them. >> it is a remarkable family feud playing out on the global stage and an instant flash-point in domestic politics as well as some pro-israel democrats cringe and the president's conservative critics accuse him of abandoning a long-time democratic ally. our senior white house correspondent ed henry was watching as the drama unfolded today and is live for us tonight. ed, take us inside that meeting. >> reporter: well, john, it was extremely tense. this meeting was supposed to be pretty short but it was a one-on-one meeting that lasted over 95 minutes in the oval office. it gives you an idea that they had a lot to talk about. the white house strategy in yesterday's speech had been look, if you throw out this border issue and put it out there favorably to the palestinians they may come back to the peace talks. but as you can see from the prime minister, the israeli feeling is that look, if you do that you're asking the israelis to compromise before you even get to the table and give in on a big, big issue. so that's why the body language was fascinating because the prime minister really looked like he was almost lecturing. he was giving a history lesson in that sound bite you heard right there, like look, this is what was going on before 1967, mr. president. you need to know this. and so that was pretty tough. and both men in their comments, though, tried to downplay the differences and insist that they were going to work all of this out. and that may be part of the untold story here. i've got two officials close to the talks telling me that these two men actually talk on the phone a lot more privately than we ever hear about, than they ever tell us publicly. and so while they disagree on some of these big issues, they can disagree agreeably but talk some of this out. but we'll see whether they can make any progress. this peace process, quote unquote, is not really a process right now. it's seriously off track. we'll see. while they talk, there are some officials close to them who say they still don't trust each other, john. >> the trust issue. the trust issue. ed henry, fascinating report from ed tonight. for more now let's dig deeper on this relationship. i'm joined in washington by mark regev, a veteran of u.s.-israeli relations, currently a spokesman for the israeli prime minister, benjamin netanyahu. mark, let me begin with this question. how much of the disagreement wen these two men, and we know there are disagreements between the two of them, how much of it is on the substance, the prime minister we know to be angry over the president of the united states bringing up the '67 borders, and how much of it is style, they are very different men, the president of the united states more professorial, the prime minister of israel more, to be frank, a bit of a pit bull? >> i think this isn't about people. this is about principles. and i think both the united states and israel want to see the peace process move forward. but the most important thing is to anchor the peace process in reality, in good policy. and we would argue if you take the issue of borders, which is one of the issues that needs to be resolved, and you deal it in isolation of the other issues you're making a mistake. and i'll explain why. how can israel decide where the final border is going to be between us and the future palestinian state in a framework of peace, how can we decide that unless we know what are the arrangements on the other side of the border? is the palestinian state going to be a democratic state? is it going to be a peace-loving state? is it going to have more claims on israel? we want to know all these things. and you can't decide where the border's going to be without answers on those questions. >> well, if i listen to what you just said, you want to process the conversations based on reality. are you saying the president of the united states, israel's best friend in the world, the president of the united states does not have a reality-based view of what's happening on the ground? >> look, america is israel's best friend. and we know that. and friends don't have to agree all the time. i mean, anyone who's studied the american-israeli relationship knows that we don't always agree. but it's the same with a relationship, the special relationship you have with london or with tokyo. friends are allowed to disagree. friends have to be frank and honest with each other. and that's what happened today. we had a good conversation, and we were frank and honest. >> you say a good conversation today. explain what happened yesterday. the prime minister, i'm told, called the secretary of state, hillary clinton. he did not like when he was told what was going to be in the president's speech. he argued that it be removed, and many people have described that conversation as quite testy. >> i think it was an honest conversation. but ultimately, let's be clear, we want similar things. we want to see peace. we want to see reconciliation. we want to see the extremists defeated. and this is why we've got a fundamental problem in the peace process today, because the current palestinian government has decided instead of going for peace with israel they've decided to embrace the extremists. they've formed this pact with hamas. now, as you know, hamas just two weeks ago condemned your country, condemned the united states for taking out bin laden. they attack civilians. they shot an anti-tank missile just a short while back at a school bus, killing a young school -- teenager, a 16-year-old boy. these are extremists. and we say to the palestinian leadership, if you want peace, if you're serious about peace, you have to annul this pact with hamas. >> there are those, and you know your prime minister has many critics. there are those who say he doesn't want to sit down with the palestinians at this moment to begin with, and there are those who are now saying because of this dust-up with the president of the united states that he would feel backed into a corner. and what happened yesterday has actually set back some the prospects of any negotiations in the near term. is that an accurate portrayal? >> i think the major problem holding back negotiations today is this pact between fatah and hamas. but if the palestinian leadership was to take good advice and they were to annul this pact and to move forward in negotiations, i believe it's possible to move ahead in peace. if the palestinians are serious, they'll find a very eager partner in israel because no one wants peace more than israel. and we're ready, as my prime minister said earlier this week, we're ready for tough choices, for painful concessions, but for real peace. now, if that's on the table, it can be achieved. but it depends on the palestinians. >> it's clear, though, it's clear, let's focus on the relationship between president obama and prime minister netanyahu. it is clear that there are some frictions, some tensions, some mistrust, i'm not sure what the right word is, maybe you can help me, diplomats like to use the term "confidence-building measures." what can these two leaders do to repair this relationship? >> first of all, i think the disagreements have been exaggerated. but let me say the following. we had a good day today. the two leaders spent almost two hours together one on one in conversations. we're going to be continuing our discussions with the united states. we want this process to move forward. ultimately, what has israel proposed? israel wants to see two states for two peoples. ultimately, the ingredient for peace is a democratic palestinian state which is demilitarized and recognizes the jewish state. and that's what my prime minister said today. he said peace has to be anchored in recognition. we have to hear from the palestinian leadership that they recognize the legitimacy of the jewish state. we're not foreigners. we're not conquerors. we have a history in our land. and we want to hear from our neighbors that they see us as a legitimate part of the neighborhood because ultimately, if we're illegitimate in their eyes, what sort of peace are they offering us? >> mark regev is the spokesman for the israeli prime minister, benjamin netanyahu and a veteran of these conversations and negotiations. mark, appreciate your insights tonight. we'll keep in touch as this drama plays out. let's turn now to david gergen. he he anavigated the ups and downs of u.s.-israeli relations during his time advising four american presidents. david, when you listen tho play out, prime minister netanyahu sitting right next to the president of the united states lecturing in ed henry's terms, essentially sitting in the oval office next to the president saying mr. president, you're wrong. >> that's pretty tough stuff, john, and i do think it's partially about personalities. these two men have never liked each other. they don't respect each other for different reasons. and i don't think they trust each other. but they realize they've got to live in the same world and try to make some progress here. i think it must be a surprise and not what the white house wanted out of the speech yesterday, which the main purpose of that speech was to send a clear message to the arab world about america's embrace of the democratic movements there. and instead now the day after they're embroiled in these disputes with the israelis. i cannot imagine that's what they really wanted. there are some sharp differences here. but i do think the differences between bibi netanyahu and obama are exaggerated, i think mark was right about that, especially on the 1967 borders. >> you think exaggerated. but the last i can remember where it's been so public the disagreements between an israeli leader and an american president or israeli government and an american administration, we'll go back to george h.w. bush, when jim baker was trying to go to the region, there were some tensions there. do you remember a time since when it's been so open? >> well, they got into pretty sharp disagreements over the settlements issue early in the obama administration, when the israelis felt that the president made demands of them that no prime minister could accept regardless of political background and the israelis pushed back really, really hard. as you'll recall. and there was a lot of -- a lot of fur that flew then. and i think actually it was from that early set of exchanges that really helped to sour this relationship. now, you asked what could they do to put this thing back together. clearly, the white house is considering the possibility of president obama visiting israel sometime between now and the 2012 elections. he has visited many countries in the arab middle east. he has not been to israel as president. >> you mentioned elections. the opposition leader in israel said president obama's right and prime minister netanyahu needs to be nudged if not kicked into the peace process. back here in the united states the president's conservative critics have rushed out statements saying he has thrown israel under the bus. how much do domestic politics maybe in both countries complicate things at this delicate moment? >> a lot, john. and there are a variety of reports that there were some tensions and disputes within the president's own team about how far to go yesterday on the israeli-palestinian issue. indeed, there are reports that one of the reasons george mitchell left was he felt that the united states ought to put a proposal on the table, and there were those in the white house who did not want to do it because they thought it was too close to the 2012 elections. so i think there's no question it was in the background. and i'm sure tom donland, his national security adviser, his old political hand, who knows politics just like you do, he's very, very good at it, that had to be part of his considerations just to make sure he kept the president in a safe position. but i must say again, i think that in many ways bibi netanyahu aggressively seized on the president's speech and made more of it than was actually i think intended because you know, he wants a basis for saying no to a lot of this going forward. he's got some very good points about hamas. when he says hamas is, you know, like al qaeda, to the israelis that rings really true. and he's clearly concerned about his own politics. >> david gergen, appreciate your insights tonight, as always. thank you, david. now, the president's disagreement with israel was one of the topics i discussed today -- thank you, david. was one of the topics i discussed today with republican presidential hopeful john huntsman. he's the former utah governor who until a month ago was mr. obama's ambassador to china. >> would you tell the prime minister of israel go into talks with the palestinians and start with the premise that you start with the 1967 borders? >> i would say you know best how to conduct this negotiation. it has gone on for a very long time and likely will continue going on a very long time. we can't force these issues. we have to make sure that security, economic development, settlements, regional security, the changing nature of the middle east, that we couldn't even have conceived of six months ago, that all of that is taken into proper consideration at the negotiating table. and that's best left up to both the palestinian authority and the israeli government. >> so the u.s. should pull back, not get as involved? president clinton had his hands on. president bush at the end tried to get -- >> i think when we start defining pre-'67 war borders we're probably pre-empting discussions that may get them there eventually, probably will eventually. but they have to take it at their pace and they have to make su sure that it's cued up with all of the other issues that matter as well. >> more with governor huntsman later, including how he explains his glowing praise of the president to a very anti-obama republican base. but next, free on bail but persona non grata. dominique strauss-kahn is out of jail tonight but not without a last-minute twist. ♪ [ male announcer ] in 2011, at&t is at work, building up our wireless network all across america. we're adding new cell sites... increasing network capacity, and investing billions of dollars to improve your wireless network experience. from a single phone call to the most advanced data download, we're covering more people in more places than ever before in an effort to give you the best network possible. at&t. rethink possible. if you have painful, swollen joints, i've been in your shoes. one day i'm on p of the world... the next i'm saying... i have this thing called psoriatic arthritis. i had some intense pain. it progressively got worse. my rheumatologist told me about enbrel. i'm surprised how quickly my symptoms have been managed. [ male announcer ] because enbrel suppresses your immune system, it may lower your ability to fight infections. serious, sometimes fatal events including infections, tuberculosis, lymphoma, other cancers, and nervous system and blood disorders have occurred. before starting enbrel, your doctor should test you for tuberculosis and discuss whether you've been to a region where certain fungal infections are common. don't start enbrel if you have an infection like the flu. tell your doctor if you're prone to infections, have cuts or sores, have had hepatitis b, have been treated for heart failure, or if, while on enbrel, you experience persistent fever, bruising, bleeding, or paleness. get back to the things that matter most. good job girls. ask your rheumatologist if enbrel is right for you. good job girls. somewhere in america, a city comes to life. it moves effortlessly, breathes easily. it flows with clean water. it makes its skyline greener and its population healthier. all to become the kind of city people want to live and work in. somewhere in america, we've already answered some of the nation's toughest questions. and the over sixty thousand people of siemens are ready to do it again. siemens. answers. live tonight from the new hampshire state capitol in concord, new hampshire tonight. here because the pace of presidential politicking suddenly picking up. more on that in a moment. but there's other important news tonight. former international monetary fund director dominique vause kahn is out of jail tonight. his biggest problem wasn't coming up with the million dollars he needed to make bail. it was figuring out where he'd go after he was released from rikers island. cnn national correspondent susan candiotti here to explain. susan? >> reporter: hi, john. the media is standing shoulder to shoulder at this hour at a spot in downtown manhattan where they hope to catch their first glimpse of dominique strauss-kahn since he was released from rikers island jail earlier this afternoon. it's a release that nearly didn't happen. a plan to release him hit a snafu when the place where he was planning to live wouldn't let him stay there. that led to a court hearing this afternoon to discuss the issue. the judge agreed to allow the former imf chief to live in a temporary location for a few days until a more permanent apartment can be arranged. why wasn't he allowed to stay at the first place? here's strauss-kahn's lawyer. >>