Iran Is Ready to Suspend 20% Uranium Enrichment, Russia Says

[Purveyor]

Source: Bloomberg

By Henry Meyer and Stepan Kravchenko - Jun 18, 2013
Iran is ready to suspend enrichment of uranium to 20 percent, a key demand of world powers at talks over its disputed nuclear program, Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov said.

In return, the Persian Gulf nation must be offered “weighty reciprocal steps,” including a gradual lifting of unilateral and United Nations sanctions, Lavrov said in an interview with the Kuwaiti news service Kuna posted today on the Foreign Ministry’s website.

“This could become a breakthrough agreement that could largely remove the tension surrounding the existing problems, including concern about enrichment rising to weapons level,” he said. “It would be unforgivable not to use this opportunity.”

Progress on an interim proposal by the world powers for Iran to suspend its 20 percent enrichment of uranium in return for limited relief from sanctions was scuttled at the latest round of talks in April by Iran’s insistence on being assured that what it sees as its right to peaceful enrichment of uranium will eventually be recognized.

Read more: http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-06-18/iran-is-ready-to-suspend-20-uranium-enrichment-russia-says.html

[Lugal Zaggesi]

1. The 20% enriched uranium

is used for fuel rods used in the Tehran Research Reactor (TRR) to produce much needed medical isotopes.

These medical isotopes are used in treating 850,000 Iranian cancer patients:
http://www.counterpunch.org/2010/04/07/is-iran-producing-medical-isotopes/

Iran does not want this critical medicine controlled by The West ("Why doesn't Iran just buy the isotopes or the fuel rods from The West ?&quot , which would not hesitate to hold Iran's cancer-stricken citizens as hostages to future negotiations aimed at "regime change". Note how the US imposed sanctions on Iraq that killed 500,000 children, before they finally invaded - Iran certainly has.

Highly enriched uranium is 90% enriched - this is what's used in nuclear weapons. Iran has never enriched to this level, but The West is worried that "it might", because mastering the engineering needed for nuclear POWER means that you understand how to make nuclear WEAPONS one day. It doesn't matter that the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty allows uranium enrichment and nuclear power - it comes down to The West saying "we don't trust you".

They trust Germany and Japan with nuclear engineering know-how - after WWII, they're totally trustworthy.

[cstanleytech]

2. And they cant buy the isotopes for medicial use from say Russia, China or some other trading

partner why?

[Lugal Zaggesi]

4. Political pressure from the West ...

...delayed Russia in finishing the Bushehr Nuclear Power Plant by about a decade.

Iran probably does not want political pressure from the West holding the power of life-or-death for hundreds of thousands of cancer patients.

As I said, the Iranians are well aware of Americans causing the deaths of half a million Iraqi children - BEFORE the illegal invasion:

And since the NPT Treaty that Iran signed is not being honored in The West, promises of NOT blocking future sales will not be easily believed.

[cstanleytech]

5. I am unclear on your comment regarding Russia, do they or do they not have the isotopes?

If the answer is that they do then I fail to understand why you believe its political pressure stopping them as it hasnt stopped them from providing arms to the side in the Syrian civil war that the US doesnt support.

[Lugal Zaggesi]

16. It's stopped them from supplying

Iran with an air-defense system that could be used to counter an illegal bombing by the USA and Israel:

http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2010/11/blocked-wikileaks-shows-how-irans-air-defense-deal-died/
Blocked! WikiLeaks Shows How Iran’s Air Defense Deal Died [Updated]
BY SPENCER ACKERMAN11.29.10

For two years, U.S. diplomats and Israeli leaders steadily implored Russia not to sell Iran a powerful anti-aircraft missile that both feared could turn air strikes against Iranian nuclear facilities into a fiasco. Stopping the sale of the S-300 missile, an issue obscure to all but obsessive observers of the region, became a secret test for American diplomacy at the highest levels.
...

So you fail to understand why political pressure works sometimes, but not always ?

Do you think the Pentagon would trust a "contract" with a Chinese supplier for all of a key component - even if they promised to not let "politics" interfere with the contract ? Now imagine if 500,000 American lives depended on China fulfilling the terms of that contract, through any and all heated political incidents...

[cstanleytech]

19. Fair enough even though that article says at the end

"To be sure, there’s no WikiLeaked cable yet released claiming U.S. and Israeli pressure stopped the S-300 sale. Maybe one will emerge when WikiLeaks releases more documents. More likely, the U.S. and Israeli efforts helped Russia decide on its own that its relationship with a global superpower and a regional giant were more important than an irritant like the S-300. Still, the documents indicate that both countries put a full-court-press on Russia over the powerful anti-aircraft missile, and reaped a big diplomatic victory."

Seeing though as this case is about medical isotopes rather than a missile weapon system what do you have to offer up on how Irans attempts to import said isotopes went?

[WovenGems]

41. Pointless

If I can make own PB&J and you say you don't trust me and that I have to buy my PB&J from so and so then I am going to tell you to go suck eggs. And that is exactly the kind of talks we have been having with Iran for years. We don't really believe in freedom or responsibility.

[happyslug]

7. You looking for reasons, when the stated reason is just an excuse.

Last edited Wed Jun 19, 2013, 02:59 PM - Edit history (1)

You have to understand, the House of Saud and the other Persian Gulf dictators do NOT want a strong Iran. Persia (now called Iran) was the main power in that part of the world for centuries. Iran only traditional enemies (Countries that could fight it one on one) was Egypt and Asia Minor (now Turkey, prior to about 1200 The Greeks, prior to about 600 the Romans, use Asia Minor as a base, prior to that the Greeks, prior to that the Assyrians, prior to that the Hittites).

Side note: The reason who was the power in Asia Minor has changed;While Iran and Egypt have been basically the same: First, Egypt is hard to attack by a large land force except from Palestine (and until the 1800s it was hard to move a large naval force, it was done during the Crusades, but that shows you how rare it was). Iran is almost as bad, Given that most of the wood in the area is from Iran, naval attacks were even rarer on Iran then Egypt. It was almost impossible to attack Iran from the East (Cyrus the Great and Alexander the Great went from Iran to Pakistan via Afghanistan, going north and then south was easier then going straight east). Attacks on Iran from the North was even harder, It was pasture land not farmland and as such has always had low populations and Afghanistan is partially in the way. The other northern route, through the Caucasus Mountains is even harder. Thus when the Turks moved from Turkmenistan to Turkey, they went through Iran but did not have enough Turks to hold onto Iran.

Unlike Egypt and Iran, Asia Minor is a hop skip and a jump from the Balkans,where people can invade Asia Minor. The Black Sea is actually a nice sea to sail small boats, thus the whole northern coast is open to an invasion from the sea. Worse, most attacks on Asia Minor are raids by small parties, thus the coast permits hits everywhere and requires troops everywhere (which is one step from disaster, Napoleon's favorite comment, "To defend everywhere is to defend no where". Thus it is Asia Minor that tends to pull out of the Middle East, opening it up to Egypt and Iran to fight over, till Asia Minor gets its house in order and moves back into the middle east.

Back to the subject. No one really expects Iran to produce an atomic bomb, it does not have a way to delivery one so why develop what you can not use? For example, In the disarmament treaties between the US and the Soviet Union, it was NOT the number of Atomic bombs that were limited, but missiles and bombers that could get atomic bombs to a target. The same logic exists as to Iran's atomic bomb, no way to delivery it, why develop one?

Thus the Nuclear development of Iran is just an excuse to sanction Iran, it is not the reason. The reason is Iran is a functional democracy in the middle east. While not up to Western Standards (Who can run is restricted for example) but the actual elections are secret and verifiable. This is what the various dictators (be they called Kings, Emirs or Presidents) fear as to Iran. The people has a say in how Iran is run, it is a limited say but it is a say, unlike the other Persian Gulf States (including Saudi Arabia) where the people have no say. This "good example" is feared by the Persian Gulf ruling classes and they want it gone.

Worse, all the the Persian Gulf States are Shiite majority populations ruled by a small Sunni leadership. The Shiites go to and from Iran all the time (the Sunni do not dare stop it, they do not want such a stoppage to be the key that opens up their country into Revolt). Thus the leadership do NOT reflect what the people under them want. It is a recipe for Civil Unrest and Iran is considered to close a good example of people having SOME INPUT into how the country is to be run.

The US leadership is hopelessly tied in with the House of Saud and the other Persian Gulf rulers. They control so large amount of the oil in the world that any unrest could double or triple the price of oil over night. The US and the West can NOT afford that so we support the ruling class and their opposition to Iran. Like them (and do to them) the US wants Iran gone. Bringing back the Shah would be ideal, but no one believes that is possible. Thus the US reports any unrest in Iran and supports that unrest, but ignores any data that shows the support the present government has (It is very popular in the rural areas of the Iran, where it has brought education, Health Care, water, sewage and electricity to the rural peasants). While there is unrest among Collage students, it does not seem to last once the students graduate. Urban dwellers have the highest level of opposition to the present government, but that does not seem to be more than a bare majority (Which is offset by the massive support from rural peasants).

Thus Iran is hated by the House of Saud, Iran has the potential to offset the oil wealth of the Arabia and the Persian Gulf. The growing unrest among their own Shiite majorities makes then hate Iran even more. US shares this hatred, for we are addicted to Saudi Oil and thus what the House of Saud hates we hate. This is typical of any drug addict when it comes to their dealer.

Side Note: While Saudi Arabia is believed to be majority Sunni, that part of Saudi Arabia where most of the oil is located in, is majority Shiite. Thus my comment that all of the Persian Gulf Countries have Shiite Majorities. Not technically true of Saudi Arabia, it is true of the part of Arabia around the Persian Gulf.

[cstanleytech]

20. "The reason is Iran is a functional democracy in the middle east." I would be interested on if that

opinion is shared by the majority of those students involved in then 1999 protests in Iran.
And no I am not saying nor claiming that the US is so much better at how it treats its student protesters because the truth is the US has at times done similar things like the Kent state shootings.

[sabbat hunter]

33. IRan is a sham

democracy. The Mullahs have a say on who can run. The supreme leader has final say on most things.

[happyslug]

34. Oh. you perfer the Saudi Arabia type of Government, where the royal family decides who is to rule

That is how the other countries outside with the exceptions of Iraq and Iran decides who will rule their country. The people do not even get a voice, and it is forbidden for them to protest such selection. Iran, while the selection is limited, the people do get a say AND THEY VOTES DO COUNT. I compare it to the story I once heard about why a particular African American was voting in an election where both candidates were pro KKK. The African American acknowledge each was worse then the other. but by showing up a voting, he knew each candidate knew he voted. Politicians KNOW who vote in every election and they count of those voters. Most elections are fought over those people who always vote. The African America voter knew this and knew if he kept voting, one or the other will, sooner or later, try to get his vote. Thus by always voting he will force both candidates, to sooner or later, try to get his vote and that meant moving away from their Pro-KKK positions.

The same in Iran. The Mullahs can restrict who can run, but the voters have the final say. The Mullahs MAY not permit a candidate that the voters what to run, but the remaining candidates have to fight for those same votes. Sooner or later the will of the Voters will prevail.

Please note these are NOT elections where you get to vote for any candidate on the ballot, but only one gets on the ballot (and write in candidates are not permitted). That was the typical elections in many dictatorships (Hitler had such elections in Germany while he ruled, so did Stalin and the Soviet Union till near the end of the Soviet Union, Saddam ran similar frauds, that is NOT the case of Iran, no 99% victory for a candidate in Iran). The Iranian elections do matter and have affect on how Iran is run.

Please note, even the "Supreme Leaders" is elected. Not directly by the voters, but by the "Assembly of Experts" who themselves are directly elected by the people. Yes it is NOT direct elections, but it is still an election. It is more democratic then the rest of the Persian Gulf Emirates.

[sabbat hunter]

36. In Iran

the candidates for the assembly of experts is selected by the Guardian council, a body who is appointed half by the Supreme Leader (and can be dismissed at will by him) and half by the head of the judicial system (who also serves at the whim of the supreme leader).

Additionally this unelected body can veto any bill (and frequently does) by Iran's parliament with no recourse other than to re-write the bill until it meets their satisfaction. They can also reject elections, in addition to rejecting any candidates they so wish.

Basically, if you are not approved by this unelected body, you do not even get on the ballot.

That is not democracy, it is a sham. It is set up to give the people of Iran the feeling that they have power over who rules them, without actually having any power.

Some of the Persian gulf emirates have elected 'advisory' councils, which are just as much of a sham as what Iran has.

[hunter]

63. This is an excellent post. Thanks.

"The US leadership is hopelessly tied in with the House of Saud and the other Persian Gulf rulers."

Despite all the "concern" expressed about Iran's nuclear activities as expressed by the U.S. government and many posters here on DU, I simply can't get excited about the issue because it all relates to the West's filthy addiction to Saudi Oil.

A stable Iran is preferable to an unstable Iran even if they have nuclear power.

[happyslug]

64. But what about an unstable Saudi Arabia????

In many ways what we are seeing is the House of Saud trying to contain its own people, but putting down Shiites no matter where they live. This is a sign that Arabia is unstable, you do not care what happens in the next country unless it affects you. Arabia has been questionable for over 20 years, I read a paper 20 years ago about the prospect of Egypt having to send troops to Arabia to stabilize Arabia as it collapses (Arabia was considered unstable then, think about it).

The House of Saud is about to undergo a generational change. Since 1953 the sons of Saud I have decided among themselves who would be the next king. This is normal for Arab Culture. The problem is we are coming into a time period when these brothers will be all dead and the grandchildren of Saud I has to decided who will be King. In such generational changes, chaos steps in for cousins are more likely to kill each other then brothers (even half brothers as the Kings since 1953 have been). If Saud I had a child in 1953 (possible) that child is 60 years of age this year. Most of his children are older then that, many are now dead having lived the 70-80 years most men live. Thus the next selection of a king the grandsons will have a huge say, and the knives will come out (and I suspect some of the fighting going on in Syria and Libya is those knives coming out, as the cousins start to show why they should be king instead of another cousin).

A similar situation occurred in the 1970s in the Soviet Union. Stalin had done his purges in the late 1930s and moved in new people in the late 1930s. He continued to purge people till he died in 1953 (Yes it was a good year for dead dictators). Now Stalin's successors were not his sons, but the bureaucrats he had appointed in the late 1930s and into WWII. These guys started to die out in the 1970s and the next generation started to look at how to get power once these Survivors of Stalin died out from nature Causes. You saw troops go into Poland to suppress Solidarity, you saw troops move into Afghanistan to make Afghanistan a better member of the Soviet Alliance. By the 1980s you saw a series of Soviet Leaders dying and succeeding each other. Till Gorbachev all of these were survivors of Stalin. With Gorbachev you finally had the post Stalin Generation taking charge, and the in fighting between the Communists Party regulars, the KGBers (which finally produced Putin), advocates of open markets (who ended up supporting Yeltsin), and some left wing advocates of reform but retaining the Soviet System (Gorbachev).

Now a Russian Joke of the late 1980s early 1990s was that an optimist was teaching his son to speak Russian, a pessimist English, a realist how to use an AK-47 for the upcoming Civil War. Such jokes tend to show people are accepting that a Civil War is possible and fearing a Civil War. Thus the various sides did not want to fight it out except via the ballot (With certain short lived revolts). Each side (as you noticed I mentioned at least four, they were more and many people belonged to more then one group) was not strong enough to impose its will so no one decided to fight anything long term and thus no Civil War. Each side wanted to improve Russia, not just get into power and thus elections have effect in Russia and eliminated the need for a Civil War,

In the House of Saud, you do not have the concept of unity that Russia has. You have several people, each fighting for a share in Arabia, mostly the oil revenue. That is a recipe for Civil War, and like the American-Mexican war was in many ways the first shots fired in the US Civil War, what is going on in Syria (and what had gone on in Libya) may be the first shots in a Saudi Arabian Civil War (and it may NOT take the 15 years it took from the Start of the Mexican war in 1846 to the Start of the US Civil War in 1861).

Just a comment that the concern should be Saudi Arabia stability not Iranian stability.

[jessie04]

3. Maybe, Could be, Blah,blah,blah, Stall,Stall,stall

here's an idea...let the IAEA in to see this "peaceful" enrichment, eh??

Talk is real cheap....no action.

[Lugal Zaggesi]

6. The IAEA inspects Iran's nuclear program all the time

http://www.iaea.org/newscenter/focus/iaeairan/iaea_reports.shtml

http://www.iaea.org/newscenter/focus/iaeairan/index.shtml

Propaganda is real easy - just hire lots of Talking Heads to make false claims on TV,
and most people won't spend the time to do actual reading to find out they're lying.

So many Big Lies - so little time.

[jessie04]

9. Oh please ...read the report

I'm having trouble c/p the pdf...read 67 to 70. The IAEA has received NO cooperation on any of the reactors in question.

They are only shown the ones known that are nothing.




http://www.iaea.org/Publications/Documents/Board/2013/gov2013-27.pdf

[Lugal Zaggesi]

15. Yes, you seem to have trouble with reading

You stated:

Maybe, Could be, Blah,blah,blah, Stall,Stall,stall
here's an idea...let the IAEA in to see this "peaceful" enrichment, eh??

as though the IAEA was never "let in" to see the Iranian nuclear power program.
Do you now admit that the IAEA has been inspecting Iran for many years? Inspection reports from 2002 are online,
so it's hard to deny it.
The complaints are all about "extra, special requirements" that the West reserves for official enemies they don't trust - not the actual NPT that was signed. And note that Iran could legally withdraw from the NPT with 90 days notice - and then be off limits, just like Israel. And India. And Pakistan. Three famous nuclear weapons scofflaws. Yet they choose to allow inspections as the NPT requires.
There are 35 countries on the IAEA Board of Governors - let's see them get try to get access to a top secret Military site in Germany, Australia, Canada, France, Japan, Korea, Saudi Arabia or United Kingdom. Which is what the USA has led them to demand of Iran at Parchin - it's outside the bounds of the IAEA, and no other country with a Military would allow such a thing.

As ex-IAEA Chief Hans Blix says (the Swedish guy - not the Japanese guy Amano, the one with dozens of US military bases still occupying his country 68 years after WWII):

Hans Blix, former head of the International Atomic Energy Agency, weighed in recently, saying, “So far Iran has not violated NPT [the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty] and there is no evidence right now that suggests that Iran is producing nuclear weapons.”

http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/2013/04/04/helping-iran-safeguard-its-nuclear-stockpile/
APRIL 4, 2013

"Has not violated the NPT".
Do you know what that means ?

Wikileaks has shown that Amano will do whatever the USA tells him, concerning the nuclear power program in Iran. If Russia still had nuclear weapons and military bases in Poland, few Americans would consider Polish diplomats to be independent of Russia. See how that works ?

[jessie04]

22. Yeah...reading is fundamental .

Give it a shot.


67. While the Agency continues to verify the non-diversion of declared nuclear material at the nuclear facilities and LOFs declared by Iran under its Safeguards Agreement, as Iran is not providing the necessary cooperation, including by not implementing its Additional Protocol, the Agency is unable to provide credible assurance about the absence of undeclared nuclear material and activities in Iran, and therefore to conclude that all nuclear material in Iran is in peaceful activities.67


68. Iran continues not to implement modified Code 3.1 of its Subsidiary Arrangements General Part, notwithstanding statements it has made in relation to the construction of new research reactors, new uranium enrichment facilities and new power reactors. Moreover, the lack of up to date design information on the IR-40 Reactor is having an increasingly adverse impact on the Agency’s ability to effectively verify the design of the facility and to implement an effective safeguards





69. Contrary to the Board resolutions of November 2011 and September 2012 and despite the intensified dialogue between the Agency and Iran since January 2012 in ten rounds of talks, it has not been possible to reach agreement on the structured approach document. Given the nature and extent of credible information available to the Agency about possible military dimensions to Iran’s nuclear programme, the Agency considers it essential and urgent for Iran to engage with it on the substance of the Agency’s concerns. Unless Iran addresses the Agency’s requirement to conduct effective verification, it will not be possible for the Agency to resolve outstanding issues, including those relating to possible military dimensions to Iran’s nuclear programme.


70. The extensive and significant activities which have taken place since February 2012 at the location within the Parchin site to which the Agency has repeatedly requested access have seriously undermined the Agency’s ability to undertake effective verification. The Agency reiterates its request that Iran, without further delay, provide substantive answers to the Agency’s detailed questions regarding Parchin and the foreign expert, and provide access to the aforementioned location.

[Lugal Zaggesi]

27. Oooh, scary report by Yukiya Amano

The country militarily occupying his country will be pleased that they got him appointed head of the IAEA.
And note that you are now arguing NOT that Iran does not allow inspections of it's nuclear sites, as you initially insisted, but that they have additional "concerns" about things outside the scope of the NPT.

Meanwhile,
back in the real world:

http://therealnews.com/t2/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=31&Itemid=74&jumival=9477

ROBERT KELLEY, FMR. DIRECTOR, INTERNATIONAL ATOMIC ENERGY AGENCY: Good evening.

KELLEY: It's mostly about going to a site in Iran near Tehran called Parchin. Parchin is a very large military explosives plant, and the IAEA thinks there's something there that we need to see.

KELLEY: Someone has told them that there were experiments there involving explosives and nuclear materials. The agency has not been able to make a good case that that's true, but they seem to dogmatically believe it 'cause someone's told them that.
JAY: And that someone we think is probably Israel.
KELLEY: Well, some external intelligence agency certainly has spoken to IAEA and given them information, which the agency is not sharing with the public, except in bits and pieces.

KELLEY: Well, exactly, yeah. They say, someone told us. If you go back and read the report that IAEA wrote in November 2011, they say, someone told us there's a chamber here and this is what they were doing. The agency has no independent information to state that. So they're just believing someone else.

KELLEY: That's a pretty specious argument. When you look for a uranium environment, particularly when you're looking for traces of a few grams that might have been handled inside that white building, you do it with very powerful sampling techniques that involve very clean wipes. And you look at corners and crevices inside the building and try to take small samples.
You don't take samples of dirt. That's not how sampling of this kind is done for tracing things in the environment, because all dirt has uranium in it and it's impossible to find the particles you're looking for if you take dirt samples. So the samples that they need to take are inside the building and inside the equipment.

KELLEY: IAEA visited two other buildings at Parchin and made two other visits to Parchin and never said what they were looking for and never said what they found. And so the Iranians are saying, now, wait a minute, if you're going to make a big deal about coming here and you're going to stake the reputation of your agency that we're doing something, you're going to have to say afterwards what happened. I mean, if the IAEA goes in there and doesn't find anything, I think the director general has staked the reputation of their agency on a very flimsy premise.

Parchin is a top secret military site with no uranium, hence the IAEA has no jurisdiction there.
Still, Iran has allowed two inspections at Parchin - but the IAEA refuses to say WHAT Mossad told them was going on at Parchin ("we want to check every single building, every single closet of this top secret conventional weapons military site, because we think they are working on a shaped explosive for uranium triggers!" Um, ok then - if we see any explosives with a shape, that's confirmation, right?), and refused to say what was the results of their looking for any evidence of uranium at this non-nuclear site.
I'm guessing if they had FOUND anything, it would have been all over the USA headlines.

Endless accusations.
Endless paranoia.
Israel and the USA will NEVER be satisfied that Iran doesn't have something hidden in some hole in the mountains or in some basement in a building at some complex somewhere - hence as long as the USA has overwhelming influence over the IAEA, existing inspections will never be enough. When Iran signed the Additional Protocol on Nuclear Safeguards in 2003 and suspended all uranium enrichment, that was not enough. It was just considered the new "baseline", and the USA and Israel ratcheted up their demands.

Israel is planning to bomb Iran - I'm sure there will be plenty of other "suspected" uranium-related sites at military installations concerning Iran's air defenses, as Israel tries to probe Iran's military capabilities. Just as they did with "inspections" in Iraq before the invasion.

[EX500rider]

57. "The country militarily occupying his country.."

Having basing rights in a country is nowhere near being a "military occupation".

The San Francisco Peace Treaty (1951) marked the end of the Allied occupation, and after it came into force in 1952, Japan was once again an independent country.

[Lugal Zaggesi]

59. Sure, and the Warsaw Pact countries were independent, too

it said so right in the Treaty.

The US Military will leave Japan anytime they're asked, right ?
After all, Japan is an "independent" country:

Opposition to U.S. military bases in Japan reaches turning point
TOKYO, Nov 25 2012 (IPS)

Here is where the bulk of the U.S.’ 47,000 troops in Japan are based.

But Okinawans, who number roughly 1.4 million, have long opposed U.S. military presence on their homeland, which experienced the only bloody ground battle between Japan and the invading U.S. military at the end of World War II in 1945.

Since the return of the islands to Japan in 1972, over 90 percent of Okinawans—concerned about their personal safety and noise and environmental pollution—have supported the demand for a complete removal of the bases, which occupy 18 percent of their land.

Now, a string of recent incidents involving military personnel has pushed opposition to the bases into outright protest and threatens to foil the U.S.’ plans to beef up its military in the Asia-Pacific region.

On Nov. 7, Christopher Browning and Skyler Dozierwalker were charged with raping and injuring a local woman on Oct. 16, in a case that sparked widespread protest across Okinawa.

“Okinawa’s struggle against the U.S. military bases is reaching a turning point. We are prepared to take our demands all the way to Washington to end the deadlock,” Zukeran said at a press meeting in Tokyo earlier this month.

Meanwhile, Ecuador wanted to open a Military base in Miami, since the US pretended a Military base in Ecuador was such a "benefit" to their economy, and not the occupation of a weaker country by a stronger one:
http://uk.reuters.com/article/2007/10/22/ecuador-base-idUKADD25267520071022

(Reuters) - Ecuador's leftist President Rafael Correa said Washington must let him open a military base in Miami if the United States wants to keep using an air base on Ecuador's Pacific coast.

"We'll renew the base on one condition: that they let us put a base in Miami -- an Ecuadorean base," Correa said in an interview during a trip to Italy.

"If there's no problem having foreign soldiers on a country's soil, surely they'll let us have an Ecuadorean base in the United States."

So, did the US allow Ecuador to open a Military base on it's soil ? Since the US would still be an "independent country", it's no big deal, right ?
Uh, no.
The U.S. said no way will another country put a military base on OUR soil, and allowed their base in Ecuador to close.

[EX500rider]

61. Ecuador has diddly squat to do with Japan being "occupied"

US bases not popular on Okinawa not the same as the Japanese Govt asking us to leave which they have not.

They want us there so bad they pay us over 2 billion $ a year to stay.

[Lugal Zaggesi]

62. The exit of US soldiers was “a triumph for national sovereignty”

said Ecuador's Foreign Minister Fander Falconi in 2009, when they kicked the Americans out.

http://en.mercopress.com/2009/09/19/last-us-forces-abandon-manta-military-base-in-ecuador

He also said that the lease agreement, signed in 1999, had not been properly legalized because it had only been approved by then Foreign Minister Heinz Muller and the legislature's Foreign Affairs committee, “and not by the full legislature nor all Ecuadorians”. It's best to push these SOFA agreements through with as few people as possible - e.g. when the entire Iraqi Parliament got involved in 2008, they voted to kick the Americans out in 2011.

Many Japanese people are hopeful that they can get rid of their rightwing government, and their American military bases, just like the Philippines managed to do:

http://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2012/11/23/national/philippine-rejection-of-u-s-bases-an-example-for-activists/#.UcYCkDRwrK0

The US Empire of Military bases (over 700 in over 130 countries) is winding down as WWII fades into history:
http://www.democracynow.org/2007/2/27/chalmers_johnson_nemesis_the_last_days

When China forces the US to accept military bases later this century,
we'll stick them in Texas, since most Americans hate Texans.
No matter how much Texans complain and whine, California and New York and the rest of old America will work with Beijing to limit their hated military bases to one small portion of USofA - and gladly pay the "protection money" demanded by China, to keep the bases "out of sight, out of mind". I never liked Houston, anyway.

[MikeW]

12. the only propaganda in here is what your spreading

They only allowed the inspectors into CERTAIN sites. The declared sites are a joke ... a front ... not the ones the IAEA is really interested in.

[jessie04]

13. I don't think you will get a response.

A hit-and-run.

[Lugal Zaggesi]

18. Which sites are they denied access to

and why are they so interested in them ?

[cstanleytech]

21. Maybe they meant

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/iran/9097533/Iran-UN-inspectors-denied-access-to-key-military-site-IAEA-say.html

"The team requested access both during this visit and during a first trip in late January to the Parchin military site, near Tehran, where it believes explosives testing was carried out, but Iran "did not grant permission," it said.

"It is disappointing that Iran did not accept our request to visit Parchin during the first or second meetings," IAEA Director General Yukiya Amano said in the statement."

[Lugal Zaggesi]

42. Sure, they want to see the Iranian Secret National Security Site...

... that has nothing to do with the nuclear program,
based on Israeli accusations. There's absolutely no ulterior motive there.

See my earlier comment:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1014&pid=512405
Note the part about the IAEA has already inspected Parchin twice, and found nothing.
But hey, let's keep poking around the Top Secret Non-nuclear Military site, and see what we find...
It might come in handy when Israel bombs Iran. "Inspections" certainly helped in the invasion of Iraq.

You realize unsupported "accusations" from Iranian enemies can go on for centuries, right ?
I heard, from a well-placed Iranian ayatollah, that they are hiding nuclear weapons under large Mosques in all the big cities.
The IAEA better start digging them up, because this tip is very credible.
No, really.
I swear.
I have hand drawings on my laptop, of nuclear weapons hidden under a mosque.

What, Iran is refusing ? What are they hiding ?

For twenty years, Iran has been "a few years away from nukes":
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1014&pid=512170

[cstanleytech]

43. *shrug* Perhaps you shouldnt have asked the question then.

[Lugal Zaggesi]

45. Maybe you shouldn't have mentioned a site they inspected twice already

But I'm agreeing that there is an endless supply of "possible" sites that Mossad can whisper to the USA who then whispers to the IAEA puppet Amano that there is a "suspicious" site that needs to be inspected.

You can never be 100% sure something's NOT going on, somewhere, amirite ?

Even with no WMD's in Iraq, "inspectors" there were suspiciously driving around for a long, long time, testing stains in the dirt for chemical weapons that degraded to harmless goo and were dumped there decades earlier. Then they complained that Iraq didn't notify them of the dirt stain...

[cstanleytech]

53. Doesnt matter if they inspected it once, twice or a hundred times you asked what sites they had been

denied access and I listed one article among many that talk about a site they were denied access to.

[Lugal Zaggesi]

54. The IAEA being denied access to a site

means that they are not allowed to see that site.
The IAEA has inspected Parchin twice already.

Are you arguing that "denied access" means "denied unending access" ?
How about a fourth, or fifth, or sixth inspection, after they allow the third one?

http://www.csmonitor.com/World/Middle-East/2012/0420/Iran-s-Parchin-complex-Why-are-nuclear-inspectors-so-focused-on-it

Previous inspections at Parchin
IAEA inspectors in January and November 2005 were given access to Parchin, a sprawling military base so large that it includes hundreds of buildings and underground structures.

At the time, it was divided into four geographical sectors by the Iranians. Using satellite and other data, inspectors were allowed by the Iranians to choose any sector, and then to visit any building inside that sector. Those 2005 inspections included more than five buildings each, and soil and environmental sampling. They yielded nothing suspicious, but did not include the building now of interest to the IAEA.

"The selection [of target buildings] did not take place in advance, it took place just when we arrived, so all of Parchin was available," recalls Heinonen, who led those past inspections. "When we drove there and arrived, we told them which building."

Hans Blix, former chief of the IAEA and later of UN weapons inspectors in Iraq, has also expressed surprise at the focus on Parchin, as a military base that inspectors had been to before.

"Any country, I think, would be rather reluctant to let international inspectors to go anywhere in a military site," Mr. Blix told Al Jazeera English about Parchin in late March. "In a way, the Iranians have been more open than most other countries would be."

Note that the IAEA never inspected any of Israel's nuclear weapons sites,
because they never signed the NPT.
Gee, I wish not signing the "highway speeding law" would get me off the hook for speeding when the cop stops me.

[cstanleytech]

55. Israel has nothing to do with Iran denying inspectors access so enough with that red herring.

Furthermore just because they may have seen it in the past or were eventually allowed to see it in the later on isnt the point but rather point is Iran decided to try to hamper the inspectors ability to do their job which was to inspect the varies sites to ensure Iran was complying and by denying the inspectors access at that time the inspectors couldnt verify what Iran had been doing there.

[Lugal Zaggesi]

56. Mossad is the one

feeding these "accusations" to the Americans, who tell Amano to demand to inspect Parchin. Again.

I don't want to hear that a country that refused to sign the NPT is standing on the sidelines, demanding that an NPT Signatory has to jump through hoops to "satisfy" their Superpower patron. Red herring my ass.

The IAEA is allowed to inspect NUCLEAR sites - which the IAEA is doing, with no problems, in Iran.
Hence the demands for more - Parchin is only of interest because of these whispered accusations.
Just like the "suspicions" in 2005 - when unbridled inspections - TWICE - revealed nothing.

The IAEA doesn't have unlimited access to anywhere in an NPT Signatory country - which part of this concept is giving you difficulty, confusedStanley ?

[jessie04]

23. "Why are they so interested in them?"

hmmmm..... could it be ...because its their job and Iran is lying thru their teeth ?

Are you even serious ??

[oberliner]

8. Well if Russia says it, it must be true!

Very trustworthy leadership over there.

[Purveyor]

14. Have the 'pet shop boys' checked in yet? LOL eom

[bemildred]

10. Netanyahu: Israel won't accept less than total halt of Iran's nuclear enrichment

That didn't take long.

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said Tuesday that Israel will not accept Iranian uranium enrichment at any level.

"We cannot accept anything less than the total cessation of all enrichment of nuclear materials at all levels, removal from Iran of all enriched nuclear material, closure of Iran's illicit nuclear facilities," Netanyahu said during a meeting with Canadian Foreign Minister John Baird.

"Until Iran meets these demands, pressure must be stepped up and Iranian nuclear program must be stopped. Period."

Netanyahu warned against the new Iranian President Hasan Rowhani, saying that his strategy is to calm the international community while quietly advancing the nuclear program.

http://www.haaretz.com/news/diplomacy-defense/netanyahu-israel-won-t-accept-less-than-total-halt-of-iran-s-nuclear-enrichment-1.530616

[Lugal Zaggesi]

17. Israel has been saying Iran is less than 5 years away from nukes...

...since 1995.

http://www.nytimes.com/1995/01/05/world/iran-may-be-able-build-atomic-bomb-5-years-us-israeli-officials-fear.html?pagewanted=all&src=pm



Q: What happens when a paranoid has low self-esteem?
A: He thinks that nobody important is out to get him.

[bemildred]

24. It's not really about the nukes, it's about Iran period.

We are still pissed because they kicked the Shah out and kidnapped a bunch of our diplomats. They must be shown the error of their ways.

Israel doesn't like Iran because Iran doesn't like Israel and is too big to fuck with militarily or dominate in some other way.

If it was just about Iran not having WMD, we would have been done with this decades ago.

[cstanleytech]

25. I respectfully disagree with you bemildred.

The US never cared about the Shah really but rather the government only cares that whoever leads a country doesn't support or commit aggressive acts towards the US.
What really pissed off our government the most imo atleast was that they didnt stop at throwing out the Shah but went on to invading the US embassy and taking the personal there as hostages as that is recognized as major no no worldwide, that and the fact that they have been behaving in a largely aggressive manner since then when it comes to the US and its ally Israel.
Hopefully though this new president in Iran will be willing to assist in mending the relations between our countries and a good way to start that would be either by doing away with the nuclear program entirely and or allowing the IAEA inspectors total and free access to all the nuclear installations without hindrance and provide an exact accounting on where all their refined material has gone in order to relieve any fears that they may be trying to build a nuclear weapon.
After all one country with new nuclear weapon capability (N Korea) is more than enough for the world to deal with wouldnt you agree?

[bemildred]

26. Yes we (respectfully) do disagree.

We seem to agree that the US remains pissed at Iran, and we agree not without reason.

I am precisely suggesting that the new bigshot in Iran will not be able to mend those fences because neither side really wants those fences mended.

I think it must be admitted that Iran has no reason whatsoever to trust us about anything, or to agree to be accountable to us for anything without something in return.

I think the 20% offer is not expected to be accepted, and we should take them up on it just to mess with them.

I think Iran has signed the NPT, which is desirable, and gains certain rights thereby, and we should give them those rights and then insist on full inspection etc. in return.

But nobody except me seems to want that, and the Saudis, for example, would not like it at all.

[cstanleytech]

28. Well we do agree somewhat it seems on the IAEA inspections being allowed :)

[bemildred]

29. Well, I mean "enforced", they don't get something for nothing either.

But yeah, I think we can agree on a lot, actually, I would wager we mainly disagree on tactics. I don't think we have the leverage to get something for nothing, or to just insist on getting our way, so we have to make some choices about how to proceed. And like I said, they have signed the NPT, so give them their due and then demand they comply in response. Then you have an argument you can win. You could even get Russia & China on board with that.

[cstanleytech]

30. Oh I agree we cannot get anything from them without offering them something else up.

For example we could offer to supply them the tech or no interest loans (or a combo of both) to invest in other sources of energy for their country like solar, geo thermal and wind power plants as well as removing most of the sanctions on them.

[bemildred]

31. Yes, I could see efforts on the economic side having some effect as a follow on.

Their nuclear ambitions don't actually make a lot of sense economically. But there are issues of national pride and sovereignty and security involved, and before economic arguments are going to carry their true weight those will have to be resolved.

I mean, we are in the early phases of a regional religious war, and Iran is smack in the middle of it, do you think they are going to disarm, give up that nuclear capability while that is still going on?

[cstanleytech]

32. I honestly dont know if they will but it certainly cannot hurt to encourage them to do so. nt

[sabbat hunter]

37. slight disagreement

I think Iran does not like Israel (or at least the leaders of Iran) because it is a majority Jewish country. They are very anti-semetic (the 'reserved seats' in their parliament being a joke) and anti Israel as a result.

[bemildred]

38. I said nothing about why Iran hates Israel.

I don't see why you think we disagree about that.

[sabbat hunter]

39. my apologies

I mis-read your post.

[bemildred]

40. No problem, I am well aware of their anti-semitic attitudes. nt

[davidpdx]

44. I know this is way off topic

But given that Iran is prone to earthquakes, wouldn't that be a potential safety issue? I know they said the plant withstood the recent earthquakes, but if larger ones were to occur what would happen.

[bemildred]

46. Yes, it is. Pakistan too, and India, for that matter. nt

[davidpdx]

47. Scary given what happened in Japan

Plus all the defective parts found in South Korean plants.

[bemildred]

48. All quite right, all being ignored.

And they have some of the best renewable energy terrain on the planet, those huge mountains for hydro, monsoons, the Indian ocean, and lots of tropical sun.

[davidpdx]

49. The monsoons here in Korea have really died off quite a bit

We get a few storms, maybe one big one and for the most part it is dry during a month where we are suppose to get a crap load of rain. When i came here 10 years ago I remember late June and July as being very wet.

[bemildred]

50. Well, yes, there is climate change to consider too, but all we can do is watch.

Fixing it won't happen any faster than messing it up, probably a lot slower.

I live in Los Angeles, and I have no doubt the climate is changing, and fast, I can see it.

I love Korea, beautiful place, the only time anybody ever got me to eat octopus.

[davidpdx]

51. I won't touch the stuff. Too slimy

I don't eat any seafood. When did you visit here? The summers can be terrible with the humidity.

[bemildred]

52. I don't either, that's why I mentioned it.

Some guys took me out to a restaurant in Seoul and this girl fried it up right in front of me, so I ate some. But usually I won't touch seafood. Maybe a tuna sandwich.

We went down south too (Daejon I think it was), stayed in a Korean hotel, which I really liked better than the "American" one in Seoul.

That was right before the Rodney King riots in LA (1992). I got to drive home through the riots. We were coming into LAX, and the stew is sitting in front of me, and when they get the flaps down, she says: "Whew, I didn't know if they were going to let us land." That's how I found out about those riots after an 11 hour flight.

My son and his wife lived near Seoul and taught English there a couple years ago, they want to go back. He is working on a degree to that end.

[davidpdx]

58. Well if they come back

tell them they have friends here. The job market is not that great right now depending on what they are looking for. Hopefully it will improve by the time they get here.

[bemildred]

60. Thank you, but they won't get a work visa without a job first.

And I'm pretty sure they already know who to talk to, but it's going to be a couple years yet to finish the degree.