Supplemental diplomacy theory argues that conflicts are as much rooted in unfulfilled human needs as they are in disputed interests. Thus, opposition can be redefined to emphasize shared problems, and the on-going relationship of the parties is made more important than specific gains or losses. The supplemental theory is compared and contrasted with Fisher and Ury's theory, which emphasizes that agreements between parties should be seen in specific behavioral or quantitative terms. Supplemental diplomacy theory should be used to manage and resolve conflict in the Middle East. The theory, which emphasizes transformative needs analysis, is demonstrated schematically and contrasted with interpretive and observable analyses of international conflict. 11 footnotes.