home / subscribe / donate / books / t-shirts / search / links / feedback / events / faq
Inside the New Print Edition of Our Subscriber-Only Newsletter!
How the SEC Abetted Madoff's Heist, Then Covered Its Tracks
First the Swindle, Now the Whitewash. Eamonn Fingleton on how the SEC helped Madoff steal $50 billion and has now covered its tracks. Danny Weil on the latest big chapter in the smash and grab saga of neo-liberalism: privatizing Public Schools. Goodbye unions; hello “private contractors”. Now it’s Los Angeles’ turn. But, yes, we can fight back. Weil tells how. “All I ask is that the poor family I give the cow to promises never to send it to the abattoir.” Meet Lachchu, the man who saves cows. P. Sainath reports from India. Get your new edition today by subscribing online or calling 1-800-840-3683 Contributions to CounterPunch are tax-deductible. Click here to make a donation. If you find our site useful please: Subscribe Now! CounterPunch books and t-shirts make great presents.
Order CounterPunch By Email For Only $35 a Year !
Meet & Debate (Perhaps Even Date) CPers Online at CounterPunch's New Facebook Page
|
Today's Stories September 30, 2009 Vijay Prashad Paul Craig Roberts September 29, 2009 Marshall Auerback Alan Farago Jeff Sher Bruce Jackson Gareth Porter Jonathan Cook Bouthaina Shaaban Dave Lindorff Stephen Soldz Sara Mann Website of the Day September 28, 2009 Laura Carlsen Anthony DiMaggio Paul Craig Roberts Neve Gordon Bill Quigley Harvey Wasserman Nicola Nasser Ben Rosenfeld Murder in New Orleans: Remembering Kirsten Brydum Website of the Day September 25-7, 2009 Alexander Cockburn Daniel Wolff Rev. William E. Alberts Mike Roselle Saul Landau Eshan Azari Winslow T. Wheeler Robert Jensen Jonathan Cook Nelson P Valdés David Michael Green Ramzy Baroud John V. Whitbeck Andy Worthington David Ker Thomson Seth Sandronsky Jim Goodman Charles R. Larson David Yearsley Kim Nicolini Lorenzo Wolff Website of the Weekend September 24, 2009 Steven Higgs Christopher Brauchli Marshall Auerback Stephanie Westbrook Nadia Hijab Sen. Russell Feingold David Macaray Binoy Kampmark Joe Allen Website of the Day September 23, 2009 Paul Craig Roberts Gabriel Kolko Uri Avnery Shamus Cooke Missy Beattie Gareth Porter Mark Weisbrot Dr. Susan Block Norm Kent Richard Neville Website of the Day September 22, 2009 Franklin C. Spinney The Huge Hole in Gen. McChrystal's Afghan Counterinsurgency Strategy Russell Mokhiber Greg Grandin Nikolas Kozloff John Ross Ron Jacobs Tariq Ali Dave Lindorff Harvey Wasserman Vijay Prashad Kareem Shora Website of the Day September 21, 2009 JoAnn Wypijewski Carl Finamore Uri Avnery Nikolas Kozloff Paul Simpson, M.D. Alan Nasser Ray McGovern Dave Lindorff Lina Thorne Jeb Sprague Website of the Day September 18-20, 2009 Alexander Cockburn Russell Mokhiber Mike Whitney David Michael Green Jonathan Cook Nadia Hijab Mark Weisbrot Michael Winship Michael Leonardi Andy Worthington Fred Gardner David Macaray David Rosen Jason Mark Mike Ferner Farzana Versey Ron Jacobs elin o'Hara slavick Gilad Aztmon David Yearsley Charles R. Larson Lorenzo Wolff Website of the Weekend
September 17, 2009 Joshua Frank Brenda Norrell Robert Weissman Pam Martens Franklin Lamb Ricardo Alarcón de Quesada Jed Bickman Alan Farago Website of the Day September 16, 2009 Ray McGovern Stephen Green Andy Worthington Dean Baker Anthony DiMaggio Ricardo Alarcón de Quesada Benjamin Dangl Robin Willoughby Eric Walberg James Ridgeway Website of the Day September 15, 2009 Mike Whitney Mutadhar al-Zaidi Marshall Auerback Afshin Rattansi Jonathan Cook Gareth Porter: Dave Lindorff Winslow T. Wheeler Franklin Spinney Karen Korenoski / David Macaray Susie Day Website of the Day September 14, 2009 Paul Craig Roberts M. G. Piety Shamus Cooke Bouthaina Shaaban Alvaro Huerta John Ross Harvey Wasserman Adam Federman Stephen Fleischman Robert Jensen Website of the Day September 11-13, 2009 Alexander Cockburn JoAnn Wypijewski Carl Ginsburg Leonard Peltier Franklin Lamb Benjamin Dangl Mike Whitney John Berger Saul Landau Russell Mokhiber Ricardo Alarcón de Quesada Felice Pace Jordan Flaherty Ron Jacobs David Macaray David Correia Robert Bryce Christopher Brauchli Paul Krassner Charles R. Larson Kim Nicolini David Yearsley Lorenzo Wolff Poets' Basement Website of the Weekend September 10, 2009 Joshua Frank Dean Baker Brian M. Downing Franklin C. Spinney Andy Worthington Chase Madar Farzana Versey Ronnie Cummins Binoy Kampmark Timothy Lebrón Charles R. Larson Website of the Day September 9, 2009 Richard Neville Melissa Checker Nadia Hijab Robert Weissman Jonathan Cook Russell Mokhiber James Ridgeway Richard W. Behan James McEnteer Martha Rosenberg Website of the Day September 8, 2009 Henry A. Giroux Stephen Soldz John Ross Jeff Leys Mike Whitney Ashcroft: Repugnant to the Constitution Shamus Cooke Ellen Brown Norman Solomon Men With Guns: In Kabul and Washington Deepak Tripathi Laray Polk Charles R. Larson Website of the Day September 7, 2009 Vicente Navarro Bouthaina Shaaban David Macaray Paul Craig Roberts Jonathan Cook Conn Hallinan Walter Brasch Mark Weisbrot Carl Finamore C. G. Estabrook Website of the Day September 4-6, 2009 Alexander Cockburn Carl Ginsburg Jonathan Cook George Wuerthner Marc Levy Ray McGovern Ricardo Alarcón de Quesada Joe Paff Gareth Porter Devin Beaulieu Anthony Papa David Ker Thomson Don Fitz Lee Sustar / Jim Goodman Wajahat Ali Ron Jacobs Helen Redmond John V. Walsh Charles R. Larson Mark Scaramella David Yearsley Ben Sonnenberg Poets' Basement Website of the Weekend September 3, 2009 Marcus Rediker Ron Jacobs Mike Whitney Ricardo Alarcón de Quesada Saul Landau Anat Matar Tanya Golash-Boza Dave Lindorff Andy Worthington Website of the Day September 2, 2009 John Ross Vijay Prashad Rev. Jim Rigby Joanne Mariner Missy Beattie Soren Ambrose Diane Farsetta Nadia Hijab Shamus Cooke Charles R. Larson Website of the Day September 1, 2009 Jeffrey St. Clair Paul Craig Roberts Mark T. Harris Dean Baker Jeffrey Buchanan Robin Mittenthal Ellen Brown Martha Rosenberg Website of the Day
|
The Qom SiteU.S. Story on Iran Nuke Facility Doesn't Add UpBy GARETH PORTER The story line that dominated media coverage of the second Iranian uranium enrichment facility last week was the official assertion that U.S. intelligence had caught Iran trying to conceal a "secret" nuclear facility. But an analysis of the transcript of that briefing by senior administration officials that was the sole basis for the news stories and other evidence reveals damaging admissions, conflicts with the facts and unanswered questions that undermine its credibility. Iran's notification to the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) of the second enrichment facility in a letter on Sep. 21 was buried deep in most of the news stories and explained as a response to being detected by U.S. intelligence. In reporting the story in that way, journalists were relying entirely on the testimony of "senior administration officials" who briefed them at the G20 summit in Pittsburgh Friday. U.S. intelligence had "learned that the Iranians learned that the secrecy of the facility was compromised", one of the officials said, according to the White House transcript. The Iranians had informed the IAEA, he asserted, because "they came to believe that the value of the facility as a secret facility was no longer valid..." Later in the briefing, however, the official said "we believe", rather than "we The official refused to explain how U.S. analysts had arrived at that conclusion, but an analysis by the defence intelligence consulting firm IHS Jane's of a satellite photo of the site taken Saturday said there is a surface-to-air missile system located at the site. Since surface-to-air missiles protect many Iranian military sites, however, their presence at the Qom site doesn't necessarily mean that Iran believed that Washington had just discovered the enrichment plant. The official said the administration had organized an intelligence briefing on the facility for the IAEA during the summer on the assumption that the Iranians might "choose to disclose the facility themselves". But he offered no explanation for the fact that there had been no briefing given to the IAEA or anyone else until September 24 - three days after the Iranians disclosed the existence of the facility. A major question surrounding the official story is why the Barack Obama administration had not done anything – and apparently had no plans to do anything - with its intelligence on the Iranian facility at Qom prior to the Iranian letter to the IAEA. When asked whether the administration had intended to keep the information in its intelligence briefing secret even after the meeting with the Iranians on Oct. 1, the senior official answered obliquely but revealingly, "I think it's impossible to turn back the clock and say what might have been otherwise." In effect, the answer was no, there had been no plan for briefing the IAEA or anyone. News media played up the statement by the senior administration official that U.S. intelligence had been "aware of this facility for years". But what was not reported was that he meant only that the U.S. was aware of a possible nuclear site, not one whose function was known. The official in question acknowledged the analysts had not been able to identify it as an enrichment facility for a long time. In the "very early stage of construction," said the official, "a facility like this could have multiple uses." Intelligence analysts had to "wait until the facility had reached the stage of construction where it was undeniably intended for use as a centrifuge facility," he explained. The fact that the administration had made no move to brief the IAEA or other governments on the site before Iran revealed its existence suggests that site had not yet reached that stage where the evidence was unambiguous. A former U.S. official who has seen the summary of the administration's intelligence used to brief foreign governments told me he doubts the intelligence community had hard evidence that the Qom site was an enrichment plant. "I think they didn't have the goods on them," he said. Also misleading was the official briefing's characterization of the intelligence assessment on the purpose of the enrichment plant. The briefing concluded that the Qom facility must be for production of weapons-grade enriched uranium, because it will accommodate only 3,000 centrifuges, which would be too few to provide fuel for a nuclear power plant. According to the former U.S. official who has read the briefing paper on the intelligence assessment, however, the paper says explicitly that the Qom facility is "a possible military facility". That language indicates that intelligence analysts have suggested that the facility may be for making low-enriched rather than for high-enriched, bomb-grade uranium. It also implies that the senior administration official briefing the press was deliberately portraying the new enrichment facility in more menacing terms than the actual intelligence assessment. Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's offer the day after the denunciation of the site by U.S., British and French leaders to allow IAEA monitoring of the plant will make it far more difficult to argue that it was meant to serve military purposes. The circumstantial evidence suggests that Iran never intended to keep the Qom facility secret from the IAEA but was waiting to make it public at a moment that served its political-diplomatic objectives. The Iranian government is well aware of U.S. capabilities for monitoring from satellite photographs any site in Iran that exhibits certain characteristics. Iran obviously wanted to make the existence of the Qom site public before construction on the site would clearly indicate an enrichment purpose. But it gave the IAEA no details in its initial announcement, evidently hoping to find out whether and how much the United States already knew about it. The specific timing of the Iranian letter, however, appears to be related to the upcoming talks between Iran and the P5+1 - China, France, Britain, Russia, the United States and Germany - and an emerging Iranian strategy of smaller back-up nuclear facilities that would assure continuity if Natanz were attacked. The Iranian announcement of that decision on September 14 coincided with a statement by the head of Iran's atomic energy organisation, Ali Akbar Salehi, warning against preemptive strikes against the country's nuclear facilities. The day after the United States, Britain and France denounced the Qom facility as part of a deception, Salehi said, "Considering the threats, our organization decided to do what is necessary to preserve and continue our nuclear activities. So we decided to build new installations which will guarantee the continuation of our nuclear activities which will never stop at any cost." As satellite photos of the site show, the enrichment facility at Qom is being built into the side of a mountain, making it less vulnerable to destruction, even with the latest bunker-busting U.S. bombs. The pro-administration newspaper Kayhan quoted an "informed official" as saying that Iran had told the IAEA in 2004 that it had to do something about the threat of attack on its nuclear facilities "repeatedly posed by the western countries". The government newspaper called the existence of the second uranium enrichment plan "a winning card" that would increase Iran's bargaining power in the talks. That presumably referred to neutralizing the ultimate coercive threat against Iran by the United States. Gareth Porter is an investigative historian and journalist with Inter-Press Service specialising in U.S. national security policy. The paperback edition of his latest book, "Perils of Dominance: Imbalance of Power and the Road to War in Vietnam", was published in 2006.
|
Now Available from CounterPunch Books! Yellowstone Drift: Spell Albuquerque: Waiting for
Lightning
|