U.S.-Iranian Relations and the Future of International Order: A Penn State Symposium

We wrote our new book, Going to Tehran:  Why the United States Must Come to Terms with the Islamic Republic of Iran, out of a conviction that how Washington deals with Iran over the next few years will largely determine America’s standing as a great power—in the Middle East and globally—for at least the next quarter century.  More specifically, if the United States continues its counterproductive quest to dominate the Middle East by intensifying economic warfare, cyber warfare, and covert attacks against Iran and perhaps even launching another war to “disarm” yet another Middle Eastern state of weapons of mass destruction it does not have, the “blowback” against the U.S. position and U.S. interests will be disastrous.  If, on the other hand, Washington abandons its delusionally self-damaging quest to dominate the Middle East—and accepting the Islamic Republic as a legitimate entity representing legitimate national interests and “coming to terms” with it is essential in that regard—the United States will be much better able to protect its real and legitimate interests, in the region and globally.

We also believe that the course of U.S.-Iranian relations over the next few years will have enormous implications for the rules-based legal frameworks and governance mechanisms that shape international order in the 21st century.  So we are pleased that, using our book as a “launch point,” the Penn State Journal of Law and International Affairs will sponsor a day-long symposium, “The U.S.-Iranian Relationship and the Future of International Order,” on Friday, February 15 see here, at Penn State’s main University Park campus in State College, PA.

Both of us will give keynotes—Flynt will open the proceedings by discussing “The Iranian Nuclear Issue, the End of the American Century, and the Future of International Order,” and Hillary will conclude by addressing “How Precipitous a Decline?  U.S.-Iranian Relations and the Transition from American Primacy.”  There will also be panels on “Iran and the Future of Nuclear Nonproliferation” and “The Iranian Case and Use of Force Doctrine as a Constraint on State Behavior” with outstanding participants, including David Andelman, Editor of the World Policy Journal; Ambassador Richard Butler, A.C.; Vice Admiral James Houck; and Professors Daniel Joyner, Tiyanjana Maluwa, and Mary Ellen O’Connell.

For anyone in or near Pennsylvania who would like to come in person, you would be most welcome.  For everyone else, a live webcast of the symposium will be available.

–Flynt Leverett and Hillary Mann Leverett


79 Responses to “U.S.-Iranian Relations and the Future of International Order: A Penn State Symposium”

  1. James Canning says:


    Victoria Nuland will be replaced at State, where she has been spokesman for Hillary Clinton.

  2. James Canning says:

    I recommend Mehdi Hasan’s comments on Iraq ten years after the illegal and idiotic US invasion:


  3. Fiorangela says:

    How strange is the construction of this AP report:

    “VIENNA (AP) — Adding weight to its announcement of a nuclear upgrade, Tehran has shown high-level U.N. officials high-tech equipment positioned at its main uranium enrichment site meant to vastly accelerate output of material that can be used for both reactor fuel and atomic arms, a senior diplomat said Thursday.

    The diplomat spoke to The Associated Press shortly after the officials returned from Tehran, acknowledging that their latest in a series of trips to the Iranian capital that began over a year ago again failed to reach a deal to restart an investigation into suspicions that Iran is pursuing nuclear arms.”

    -Iran shows hi-level officials their hi-tech nuclear equipment
    -This behavior provides for the journalist reason to include scare concepts — “suspicion that Iran is pursuing nuclear arms.”

    What if the UN diplomat had been refused access to Iran’s hi-tech equipment; then what would the journo have diligently scribed?

  4. Richard Steven Hack says:

    Hopefully you get some mainstream media coverage of this event?

    Still say why the book promotion is hot you need to get on Jon Stewart or Colbert’s shows.

  5. Richard Steven Hack says:

    Meanwhile, the IAEA talks have “failed” yet again to get any agreement.

    Next up – the February 26 talks the week after next – which will also fail. There will be no diplomatic movement after that until after the Iranian elections, if then. Israel and the US will presumably make a major push for more sanctions during this period, followed by another engineered “election fraud” propaganda push after the elections.

    This will push the media preparation for war while the Syrian situation gets worse. By end of the year or first part of 2014, after the US and NATO attacks Syria, Obama and Israel will be pushing for a naval blockade.

  6. Fiorangela says:

    I wonder if any of the panelists will discuss issues relating to cyber warfare and drone warfare. Iran has been the guinea pig/target of both means of carrying on war against another sovereign country.

    In a recent appearance on C Span Washington Journal, Christopher Anders of ACLU, and John Bellinger, who provided legal counsel to the Bush administration on the use of torture, discussed drone warfare. http://www.c-spanvideo.org/program/310907-4

    Anders argued that it is essential to provide a system of rules governing the use of drones. Bellinger noted that the US has engaged in warfare over the past decade based on Congress’s 2003 Authorization to Use Military Force granted to George Bush and the US presidency.

    AUMF removes war powers from the control of the people, through their elected representatives, and vests that power solely in the president.

  7. Smith says:

    For those who think UN and international law can protect Iran from the coming genocide, here is a quote right from the heart of UN by its General Secretary, Ban Ki Lunatic:

    “We should not give much more time to the Iranians, and we should not waste time. We have seen what happened with the DPRK.”


  8. Smith says:

    As posted above, Mr Moon (aka Lunatic) has called for the security council to prepare for war against Iran in his most recent interview as linked above. In the comment section of the article Ambassador K P Fabian has commented and his comment I reproduce here under his name as a quote:

    “The UN SG is talking through his hat.

    He wants to ensure that the forthcoming talks will be fruitless by threatening and abusing Iran.

    Why not start bombing?

    Sad that UN SG is advocating war!”

  9. fyi says:

    Smith says:

    February 14, 2013 at 7:54 pm

    Yes, if true, they are deplorable.

    On the other hand, Iranians (and later Iraqis) never had much for UN – it is a good thing UN – another legacy of the now defunct Peace of Yalta – is so nicely self-destructing.

    The de-legitimization of UN, in its current form, must become a feature of Iranian foreign policy.

  10. jay says:

    I also read Mr. Ki-Moon’s statement – with great dismay; although I was not surprised.

    I’d like to suggest to our hosts that their symposium is a great forum to discuss Mr. Ki-Moon’s display of undiplomatic bias. The actions of Mr. Ki-Moon makes a mockery of the very organization he heads. It demonstrates – if there were every any questions – to the world that international organizations have no standing in the new order.

    The question for discussion: Is there a future for “international order” when the man in charge of “international order” has no respect for the very diplomatic foundation of “international order”.

  11. Unknown Unknowns says:

    Smith-san: thanks for your insightful post in the last thread. The future does indeed look bleak if Obama II is the same as the Zionist shill Obama I was.

  12. Sineva says:

    Smith says:
    February 14, 2013 at 7:09 pm
    A scary comment but not a surprising one Ban is to the UN what Amano is to the IAEA,there isn`t even a pretense of impartiality,both are western bootlicks and should be treated as such

  13. BiBiJon says:

    Iran’s Nuclear-Technology Gains Suggest Sanctions Are Backfiring


  14. Richard Steven Hack says:

    Turkey to Iran gold trade wiped out by new U.S. sanction

  15. Richard Steven Hack says:

    Risky equilibrium in Iran nuclear crisis

  16. James Canning says:

    The primary problem, in terms of a “red line”, regarding Iran’s nuclear programme, simply is that Iran is stockpiling 20% uranium in an amount much higer than needed for the TRR. And what is the reason for this stockpiling? Some who post on this site argue that Iran needs to stockpile 20% U, to pressure the P5+1 into accepting Iranian enrichment to 5%, and getting rid of the sanctions. But the P5+1 already seem to have made clear they will accept such Iranian enrichment (to 5% or lower).

  17. Richard Steven Hack says:

    Upcoming offer to Iran is to shut down Fordow

    “I’m gonna make him an offer he can’t accept.” LOL

  18. Karl.. says:

    The moon comment is on a new level, surely we have known this man is a puppet but obviously he have turned into a hateful war hawk, what a reprehensible comment/man urging closure of diplomacy, I have no words for it. And why would he compare Iran to North Korea, why not compare North Korea to Israel if thats the case, both have tested nukes secrectly. Seems like moon have been talking to netanyahu for quite some time.

  19. fyi says:


    Interview with Mr. Meridor that describes the Axis Powers’ war aims against Iran:

    “…everything connected to the Arab Spring. Regimes fell and simultaneously, the Iranian axis strengthened. That’s where the danger lies: if Iran, via the axis it created with Syria and Hezbollah, will be the dominant power in the Muslim world, that will be another world altogether.”

    This has nothing to do with 20% enrichment.

    Read more: http://www.al-monitor.com/pulse/originals/2013/02/dan-meridor-we-should-coordinate-our-settlement-policy.html#ixzz2L1s5RYsT

  20. Fiorangela says:

    fyi — the Foreign Policy article on UN had little substance.

    It praised personality-driven, rather than principled, initiatives — in fact, it praised the erosion of principle. It claimed that Susan Rice demonstrated that personality-power at UN, when in fact, in addition to her failure to uphold principle, Rice’s very infrequent involvements with the UN have featured her barking her/the US’s opposition to measures that most of the rest of the world endorses, such as Palestine’s elevation to state-status.

    The article elevated a sham, bleeding-heart rationalization for intervention in the internal affairs of a sovereign state — the –responsibility to protect– to the status of principle and foolishly praised UN for operating on that sham to call in air attacks on Libya and murder Qaddafi, and pilloried Russia for pointing out the obvious, that they were tricked into supporting the Libya intervention and would not be tricked again.

  21. BiBiJon says:

    Ban Ki-moon, You and what army?

    I share the dismay/disbelief of Jay, Karl, Smith, and others here about UN SG’s comments.

    Dan Joyner says about UN SG’s comments:

    That is unfortunate. Note that he just assumes that Iran’s case is identical to NK, and that their motives are the same. And he keeps saying that both he and the West are not convinced of Iran’s peaceful nuclear intent. Ooohhhkkkaaayyy. And why is that Iran’s problem? Nowhere in any relevant legal document is the onus placed on Iran or any other NNWS to “convince” the UN Secretary General, or the US, or the IAEA of anything. Being convinced is a purely subjective determination. You can’t place an obligation on anyone to convince someone else of something. That’s why the IAEA CSA is structured in an objective fashion – the NNWS produces a report declaring all fissile material and related facilities. The IAEA makes sure the declaration is accurate. Unless there is some demonstrated inaccuracy, the state is in compliance, whether Ban Ki Moon or anyone else is convinced or not.


    Also, considering that Mr. Ban is South Korean, his likening Iran to North Korea, is tantamount to declaring Iran as his personal enemy. One expects that ascension to the post of SG behooves the person to shed his tribal prejudices at the door, rather than wear them so prominently on his sleeve. Here I am griping for North Korea’s sakes, rather than Iran’s. A South Korean SG surely should ‘lead from behind’ especially on matters pertaining to North Korea, for appearances sake.

    The fig leaf for any SG is the Security Council. To keep up appearances, all an SG has to do is show deference to UNSC. But, when it comes to North Korea, our South Korean amigo cannot suppress the urge to dance ‘full monty.’ Remember his demanding UNSC action against North Korea for the alleged sinking of a vessel from his country.
    See http://web.archive.org/web/20100528051009/http://www.undispatch.com/node/9910

    If it’s true that ‘you are what you say’ then Ban is bringing all the peculiarities of South Korea’s contemporary history to have an undeserved bearing on how he manages the United Nations. Such small-mindedness has no place in diplomacy at any level. Ban is simply unfit for his post.

    An SG’s public stances/utterances surely need to navigate the calmer waters dividing majority of UN membership and the West. Ban not only is disregarding what the majority of nations say (e.g. see NAM repeated pro-Iran declarations), he is doing a rhetorical equivalent of Netanyahu’s ACME bomb, with unrestrained petulance and frenzy he is expressing and advocating advocating impatience, cynicism, and mistrust. In all seriousness, is this management of peace among nations, or hastening systemic plunder of majority by a few?

    So, it is fair to ask the question: Is Ban using (God fearing) Iran to bash his tribal enemy, (Godless) North Korea, or the other way round?

    Ahmadinejad once said “let them get so angry their heads explode.” Well, the world’s chief diplomat has gone bang already. Brace yourselves. He has got another 4 years.

  22. Fiorangela says:

    While the Leveretts were in Symposium at Penn State, Nima Shirazi posted this announcement: Wide Asleep in America Meets Muftah

    Nima, whose comprehensive critique of Ray Takeyh’s most recent misguided analysis of US-Iran relations was cross-posted right here on Going to Tehran —


    is now writing for Muftah, which is “dedicated to providing “incisive analysis on the Middle East and North Africa (MENA) that eschew[s] Western obsessions with terrorism, oil, and Islamism and, instead, highlight[s] issues and concerns that mattered to the region’s people.”

    Check out the credentials of writers and advisors to Muftah. Impressive.

    The Leveretts’ duet is rapidly developing into a chorus.

    Congratulations to Nima and Muftah.

  23. BiBiJon says:

    Fiorangela says:
    February 16, 2013 at 9:41 am

    It was a delight to hear your name at the Symposium.

  24. BiBiJon says:

    fyi says:
    February 15, 2013 at 10:32 pm

    “This has nothing to do with 20% enrichment.”

    Fyi, regarding the 20% troll’s incessant assertions, e.g. “the P5+1 already seem to have made clear they will accept such Iranian enrichment (to 5% or lower)”, are you aware of any such clarification worth the paper it is allegedly written on?

    Is the troll aware that agreeing to enrichment on her own soil at any level is tantamount to agreeing to Iran’s principle demand regarding respect for her rights under NPT, which she has categorically stated will be reciprocated by full transparency, over and beyond AP. Is the Troll aware that Iran has categorically, repeatedly stated that P5+1’s undertaking to supply TRR fuel will be answered by an immediate cessation of enrichment to 19.75%?

  25. fyi says:

    Fiorangela says:

    February 16, 2013 at 7:06 am

    You wrote: “It praised personality…”

    Precisely – the article was enumerating symptoms of institutional demise.

  26. Karl.. says:


    About the “convincing”. Also check how the news is framed, most lately, I read a headline in the western press, it stated something like the following:
    ‘IAEA fail to reach a deal with Iran’.
    IAEA fail? Why dont we see the following headline – ‘Iran fail to reach a deal with IAEA’ used?
    No, we are framed to believe that the reason for not reaching a solution is because of Iran and Iran only.

    Besides, speaking on ban ki moon, remember when he insulted his host Iran when he was invited as a guest in the NAM meeting? He completely ignored the agenda and topic of the NAM meeting instead he did a short speech filled with criticism against Iran it was like a script from netanyahuu.
    He condemned Iran for denying the holocaust (like that ever happend!)
    He condemned IRan for wanting to wipe another land off the map (like that ever happend!) and all done with his 11 year old voice and his bad english speaking.

    For those who missed..

  27. Cyrus_2 says:

    This is getting ridiculous:

    Exclusive: Big powers to offer easing gold sanctions at Iran nuclear talks


    A few days earlier:

    Exclusive: Turkey to Iran gold trade wiped out by new U.S. sanctions


    So first US Congress adopts new measures making it almost impossible for Iran to trade in gold, and then a few days later they offer to ease the very same gold sanctions in exchange for Iran closing down Fordo.

    I don’t think I’ve seen such a clear example of negotiating in bad faith in the past ten years, or it should be Obama’s letter to the Turks and Brazilians.

  28. Richard Steven Hack says:

    Big powers to offer easing gold sanctions at Iran nuclear talks

    Like that’s going to work…

    It’s very clear the new talks on February 26 will go absolutely nowhere.

  29. Richard Steven Hack says:

    Concern in Israel: “The U.S. Does Not Intend to Attack Iran”

    This is almost completely meaningless. Some Undersecretary of State makes some comparisons with the Cuban missile crisis and some idiots interpret this to mean the US doesn’t want a war with Iran.

  30. Richard Steven Hack says:

    The symposium has been held, and Dan Joyner says the Leveretts changed his mind about some things.


  31. James Canning says:


    You claim the nuclear dispute “has noting to do with 20% enrichment”. Yet you yourself have said you hope Iran is stockpiling 20% U as part of a programme to be able to build nukes quickly. What other explanation is there for such stockpiling?

    William Hague has made clear the EU does not seek “regime change” and that the issue is a possible Iranian nuclear-weapons programme.

  32. James Canning says:


    Iran would be richer and stronger today if it had not started enriching uranium to 20%. True, the people would have suffered due to what may be astounding stupidity on the part of the US (blocking Iran’s IAEA application to buy replacement nuclear fuel for TRR).

  33. James Canning says:


    William Hague’s statement of Feb. 5, 2013: “The UK, as part of the E3+3, remains committed to finding a diplomatic solution tlo the nuclear issue with Iran. . .”
    “Iran continues to enrich uranium. . . on a scale that has no plausible civilian explanation.”

    Contrary to your claim, the dispute is about uranium enrichment to 20%.

  34. James Canning says:


    Interesting you would draw attention to rubbish propaganda from Dan Meridor, and claim he makes sense!

    Dan Meridor: “Because if Iran and Hamas say that according to religion, Israel cannot exist. . . ”

    Total rubbish.

  35. James Canning says:


    If you are instead arguing that neocon warmongers (and other fanatical elements of the Israel lobby in the US) want to inflict great damage on Iran, so that Isreael can continue its insane colonisation programme in the West Bank, I agree with you.

  36. kooshy says:

    Here is the link (Voice) to a very important speech perhaps one of the most significant speeches in this past 34 years with regard to Iran’s foreign policy made today by Grand Ayatollah Khamenei to visitors from eastern Azerbaijan providence I am sure and I hope the official translated English text to be available in few days.
    In today’s speech Ayatollah Khamenei puts forward what would be expected and necessary from the American side for initiating a direct talk with Iran which reinforces what the Levertts have been saying for years. I hope Going to Tehran will post an analysis of today’s speech.


  37. fyi says:

    BiBiJon says:

    February 16, 2013 at 10:51 am

    There is no evidence that P5+1 has accepted Iranian enrichment at any level.

    Their aim remains de-nuclearization of Iran; no enrichment at any level on Iranian territory.

    To wit, their offers, including the purported offer to allow gold trade with Iran if Iran performs X,Y, and Z, are aimed to establish the precedent and the process of dismantling their sanctions as Iran dismantles her nuclear industries.

    P5+1, just like the Six Party talks, are now at dead-end due to significant strategic threats to Iran and her allies.

    [If Iran and Syria were armed with nuclear weapons, US, EU, Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Turkey would not have dared initiate a campaign of regime de-stabilization.]

  38. fyi says:

    Cyrus_2 says:

    February 16, 2013 at 12:17 pm

    Gold trade will go on.

    If Axis Powers insist on it, gas flows from Iran to Turkey will end.

    That will harm Turkey.

    There is a limit to how much harm Turkey will absorb as Axis Powers try to wound Iran.

    She already has absorbed significant harm in her posture against Syria.

    Let us see how much more this man-servant of Axis Powers will bear.

  39. jay says:

    James Canning says:
    February 16, 2013 at 2:43 pm

    “Iran continues to enrich uranium. . . on a scale that has no plausible civilian explanation.”

    Your insistence on reasserting claims without basis is curious!

    It is incumbent upon individuals making such claims to support their assertions with proof.

    Can you provide such proof, or do you instead plan to continue to rebroadcast baseless assertions?

    I am genuinely interested in seeing your analysis that forms the basis of such a claim, but I am doubtful about your ability to furnish such analysis.

  40. fyi says:


    Today, 02/16/2013, Mr. Khamenei, in a speech to visiting Azeri people, stated Iran’s pre-requisite to negotiations with US.

    1. Avoidance of bullying (by US) and mischief making (e.g. intelligence war, sanctions, etc.)
    2. Respect for the rights of Iranian people(e.g. enrichment, etc. or reconfirmation of Algiers Accord)
    3. Non-interference in the internal affairs of Iran (e.g. 2009 election crisis)
    4. Avoidance of creating strife in the region (e.g. Syria)

    Let us see how US leaders respond.

  41. James Canning says:


    I was quoting the British Foreign Secretary’s statement of Feb. 5, 2013.

    Surely you are not arguing Iran needs to have enough 20% uranium on hand to fuel the TRR for 20 years? Or, are you?

  42. James Canning says:


    (From prior thread) William Hague’s statement of Feb. 5, 2013 indicates the problem is Iran’s stockpiling of 20% U far in excess of what is needed to pruduce TRR fuel.

    You’ll notice Hague did not say the problem is any enrichment.

  43. James Canning says:


    You should read William Hague’s statement of Feb. 5, 2013. Earlier, John Kerry hinted the US is willing to accept Iranian enrichment to 5%. Other members of E3 + 3 apparently accept such enrichment.

  44. jay says:

    James Canning says:
    February 16, 2013 at 4:59 pm

    James, you have been the primary promoter of the idea that Iran is “stockpiling” uranium – particularly with respect to 20% enrichment.

    It is incumbent upon you to support this claim. Stockpiling as you, and Mr. Hague, claim is inaccurate unless you can show proof.

  45. fyi says:

    jay says:

    February 16, 2013 at 6:04 pm

    It is hopeless to discuss with him – he does not seem to grasp that P5+1 forum is dead.

  46. fyi says:

    James Canning says:

    February 16, 2013 at 5:04 pm

    We have a saying in business: “Give the customer what he wants.”

    [Many US businesses evidently forgot this and suffered the consequences – such as the bankruptcy of General Motors.]

    It matters not what Mr. Hague or the others consider to be a credible offer – Iranians do not find in it what they want.

    Iranians have predicated everything on the recognition of their rights under NPT.

    P5+1 refuses to do so, aiming for eventual removal of all enrichment on Iranian soil.

    It is like a man who wants to buy a sports car with stick-shift, rear-wheel drive, 12 cylinders etc. but the salesman keeps on trying to selling him a Hillman, thinking to himself: “That is good enough for him.”

    Regardless, P5+1 forum has outlived its usefulness; the world has changed and will change even more in the next 3 years.

    The P5+1 have estimated this year, 2013, to be the best year to have reached a deal with Iran (under duress of Economic Warfare.)

    Alas, it is not to be, may be in 2014 there could be another attempt; Iranians furnishing a face-saving deal to P5+1. (Personally, I am doubtful.)

  47. Sineva says:

    James Canning says:
    February 16, 2013 at 5:02 pm
    Then why is it that the west demands iran halt all enrichment,not just the 20%,if the west wanted a deal it could get one easily,recognize and accept irans right to enrich,agree to supply fuel for the trr and in return iran agrees to limit enrichment to 5%,no shutting down of fordow but iran ratifies the npt additional protocol,there that wasn`t so hard was it??,instead we have sanctions,threats,lies and more sanctions but the centrifuges keep spinning and the stockpile keeps growing,the west cannot say yes to a deal nor can it say yes to war so it is stuck between a rock and a hard place hoping for a miracle ie an iranian surrender and in desperation resorting to ill considered stupidities like syria

  48. Sineva says:

    fyi says:
    February 16, 2013 at 8:45 pm
    fyi says:
    February 16, 2013 at 8:31 pm
    I agree on both counts

  49. BiBiJon says:

    Alistair Dawber writes about Prisoner X

    “Even if Zygier had compromised Rigi, would that have warranted the tough treatment Zygier received? Moreover, while the Israeli government will never comment on the cases, there is evidence to suggest that it has had a hand in the deaths of a number of leading Iranian nuclear scientists, some killed in their cars as they travelled to work; a grisly, if nonetheless successful way of checking Iran’s nuclear progress.”

    From http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/secrets-and-lies–the-double-life-of-prisoner-x-8498165.html

    Nothing unusual here. MSM has been pushing all manner of implausible speculations about the Prisoner X. It is of course an attempt to flood out whatever the reality might be.

    But the passage quoted above is a good illustration of the mindset gripping the west. It is an extension what began in 2003. It was grisly to destroy Iraq, if nonetheless successful way of ridding the world of Saddam; It is grisly to drone, and double tap enemies and innocent bystanders to death, if nonetheless successful way of checking insurgents.

    As with all such excuses, a grisly crime it certainly was, but successful it sure hasn’t been, and denying a Iran’s inalienable rights was the objective, itself an injustice.

    Uranium continues to be enriched at faster rates. New faster centrifuges are being rolled out. Fordo is fully decked out. Hundreds of Iranian students switched to major in nuclear science in honor of martyrs.

    Alistair wants to sooth his readers’ conscience. I got news for Alistair. Everything Britain has been involved in this past decade has been mindless crimes against humanity. Whatever was the objective of your grisly souls, it has not been achieved.

  50. Smith says:

    Nasser says:
    February 15, 2013 at 2:05 am

    Thank you. This problem is new to modern humans and is increasing in proportions and importance. We are going to hear more about it as time goes and specially towards the end of our lives (end of this generation).

    I do not claim to have reached a conclusion on this and there is no conclusion as of yet in scientific circles. But here are some points you might find interesting to keep in mind if you are interested in the subject:

    1) It is not really advisable to use a British public school product as a source. Specially of a troll type.

    2) Wealth does not necessarily bring down fertility rate. Neither does technology. The only thing that has a clear association with fertility rate is education specially and probably only female education. In Iran of 1978, the society had twice the GDP per capita than it did in 1993. In 1978 the fertility was over 7. By 1993 it was just above 2.

    3) The apparent stability of human demographics is deceiving. The reality is deeper than that. If every couple today has just one child on average that goes on to reproduce (fertility rate of ~1.1) then the population is halved every generation. It is a classic geometric progression with disastrous consequences. Within five generations the current world population would fall to about 200 million. I theorize this depopulation trend is not going to be of uniform character across all races (or infact within races too). That is the red Indians (of our time) are going to die while master race is going to rule. It has happened before on a couple of continents.

    4) Take in to account that as per studies, for a human society to be able to retain all the currently available knowledge (science/technology/arts), it must have at least a population of 80 million. To keep innovation and inventions going and to keep our genetic diversity, actually that population has to be bigger. Let’s say in ideal conditions for a human society to progress and retain almost all that we have, knowledge and our genes, we need actually a population of 200 million. It means if tomorrow we hit a fertility rate of 1.1, then we are just 5 generation away from catastrophe. It is not that far into future. Some people alive today, might actually see that catastrophe. At the point when humanity hits that mark the decline is going to become much faster as the humanity is going to shed both knowledge and genetic diversity.

    5) Some quick points about females:

    I) The most important economic activity, something more important than Samsung electronic industry, Daewoo Industries and LG production lines is the act of conception. Without pregnancy there would be no economy. With only half the pregnancies necessary to sustain a given population, that society is going to see its economy halved every generation until it disappears. Hypothetically take North Korea vs. South Korea. Biologically the act of reproduction is more important than the length of life or the quality of life.

    In fact the biological systems that live short lives but reproduce more are more successful. So in this hypthetical case, let’s say North Korea has a fertility rate of 2.1 and South Korea has a fertility rate of 1.1. Within six generation the population of North Korea is going to be the same as of today at 25 million. South Korea’s population on the other hand would be 0.8 million despite having a population of 50 million today. Theoretically it means after six generation there would be no South Korea as a viable polity. Practically South Korea stop being of any importance when its population goes below 5 million. Roughly after three generations.

    II) Human females have been kept like pets for most of human history. Even today almost all the political, military, economic and social power is in the hand of males. Even in western countries. The mere illusion that a few females are used as eye candies on TV or in other media does not show their power or influence. Yes, Paris Hilton has wealth and media influence. But that is inconsequential and geared towards the foolish and childish desires of males. So I do not agree that females have any real influence in the world today. They are still pets for most parts. Sad but true.

    III) The most dangerous occupational hazard in human history has been the process of giving birth. I do not know how many you have witnessed both natural and otherwise, but I can assure you that there is no occupational hazard more dangerous than being merely a female. Until recently in human history and even today, most of female population perform this important economic activity at great risk to their own lives. And the risk has not been completely eliminated even in the most advanced countries. Complications from HELLP syndrome to abruptio placentae and pregnancy induced cardiomyopathy do occur. Females literally put their own lives at risk to keep human society alive, one pregnancy at a time.

    There is no male occupation that comes even close. The only male equivalent examples we have of such a critical and dangerous occupation are in the fiction in the form of super heroes who (dream to) save the human race by performing a “dangerous” job. They make me laugh. These super heroes should watch a C-Section under spinal anesthesia. They are going to learn that when the belly is cut and wide open with all the bloody gauze and sheets around, the mother (to be) asks the surgical team about the baby and not of herself. Talk about occupational hazard now.

    IV) Few people know these because of our male dominated world. But let me tell you about another occupational hazard. The most important and the single most preventable cause of cancer in the whole of human history and even today is the use of solid fuel (mostly wood and dung) for cooking. The females have been the exclusive chefs of human societies since we discovered fire. Since that time the fuel has been solid. You see the electricity, liquid and gas fuels are pretty new inventions and still half the world eats food that are cooked on solid fuel. And it is not only cancer. There is COPD and chronic asthma caused by cooking on solid fuel as well as other diseases. But we rarely hear about these. Compare to the outrage caused by asbestos because the victims were mostly male. The world almost banned asbestos in 20th century despite asbestos having been in wide use for only a short period with limited applications. Solid fuels still continue into 21st century and I can assure you that it will not be replaced even in 22nd century either.

    V) You might think that my examples are pre-industrial and “old-fashioned” with regard to occupational hazard. But think again. The most horrifying examples of industrial exploitation have had females as their central characters. The reason was, they were deemed cheap and disposable labor. Take the case of phossy jaw, a peculiar medical condition of horrifying character that used to happen almost only to females who used to work with white phosphorus in match factories.

    In fact it got so bad, that eventually a famous strike by girls (London matchgirls’ strike of 1888) forced the industry to change to much safer red phosphorus matches which now we know by the name of safety matches. The word safety in that name does not mean the the matches are safe. Rather it means the females no longer have to die with extreme disfigurement of jaw so that the Englishman of 19th century could carry fire in his pocket to lit his cigars produced by slave labor of colored men in far away lands. This matchgirl strike played a huge role in industrial safety and worker right legislation. Another modern example of occupational hazard is that of Radium Girls with their famous and sad story.

    6) It is the technology and the “modern society” that has to adopt itself to make the act of reproduction desirable and fashionable specially for females. As I said the current trend is the opposite. Our education system and social set up is designed to make reproduction difficult specially for females. There are some biological realities that have to be taken into account specially with regard to genetic diseases that increase in prevalence with increase in mother’s age. The short story is the fact that men after thousands of years have still failed to make a safer society for females. So females have now chosen not to continue the species. I am hardly surprised.

    Answer to your question:

    The government is already doing that. In fact that was one of the first things that the government of Ahmadinejad did when it came to power. It changed the priority from Tehran and large cities to smaller cities and villages with Ahmadinejad openly declaring that Iran needs a population of 150 million. But I do not think this is the solution. Money has not been able to solve this problem. Some rich countries have tried to up their fertility rate by giving money to couples and females with not much success. These kind of gimmickry have short lives and invariably fail in long term. What induces formation of families is a mature and stable society with some kind of religion or philosophy for guidance. Unfortunately or fortunately humans have been able to decouple the sexual pleasure from conception through the invention of contraceptives.

    Now we need a society that is biologically educated enough in its philosophy of life that allows it to have a stable population. Money can not substitute that philosophy. At least not in long term. Religiosity can. For instance if you are a true believer of Shia Islam and your Ayatullah is recommending you to have atleast two or even three or four babies, then it works for you. This is not to say that economic facilitation or social security does not matter. It does. But to those who already want to follow the philosophy of reproduction. The liberal girls of Tehran might want to play till they go to menopause. It is their choice not to reproduce, despite most of them actually being more wealthier than the average Iranian. So I do not think the Ahmadinejad way will work. The Khamenei way has more of a chance if combined with good government services such as free medical care, tax breaks, extended maternity leaves, etc etc but no direct cash. The unfortunate thing is that Khamenei reached this conclusion quite late and now specially with sanctions, things are going to be difficult. The couples would really need a leap of faith to save Iran from the catastrophe.

  51. Smith says:

    fyi says:
    February 14, 2013 at 10:58 pm

    Indeed. This de-legitimization of UN and specially the undemocratic security council component of this proto-colonial organization should become the cornerstone Iranian foreign policy. This will become even of more importance when Iran becomes a nuclear weapon state. Ahmadinejad had referred indirectly to this but I do not think until Iran becomes a nuclear weapon state, Iran’s attempt at de-legitimization would be successful.

  52. Smith says:

    Sineva says:
    February 15, 2013 at 4:49 am

    In reality both are insignificant puppets. The real power lays below them. Take the case of IAEA and its inspections of Iranian nuclear facilities. The inspections are done almost exclusively by white men from western countries. The online cameras monitoring Iranian nuclear facilities have their TV feed in western capitals watched by white men. You will never see an Iranian expert as part of IAEA inspecting a German or Swedish nuclear facility. Neither the live TV feed from German and Swedish nuclear facilities can be watched in Tehran. The problem is bigger than two people. It is structural.

  53. Smith says:

    fyi says:
    February 16, 2013 at 4:47 pm

    We are not going to see any response. This is becoming a battle between good and evil. You can not expect evil to change to good in the middle of a fight. Even the evil knows that doing so would mean accepting the loss. If US changes with regard to Iran, there will be a massive mutiny of slaves from South America to Africa. The master has to keep his unbending resolve unbended if he has any hope of ruling over its empire. Mr Khamenei will soon find out that negotiation is not possible when one side is holding nuclear weapons and intends to rule over its slaves. It becomes only possible when either both have or do not have nuclear weapons. Iran can not hope to even negotiate on equal terms with Pakistan, let alone United States.

  54. Smith says:

    Some points with regard to symposium:

    1) Ms. O’Connell implied that Iran had not allowed IAEA full access to different sites. This is a lie. She also suggested that Iran should “make friends”, whatever that means. Friends made among slaves are useless to a free man such as Iran. Otherwise she appeared to try being legally right. But she needs a bigger stomach if she wants to progress on this one. Iran is not for faint hearts as Ms. Hillary explained towards the end of the talk. Overall NPT has been a disaster for Iran. Not only it has failed to protect Iran’s interests but it has harmed them beyond repair. From Darkovin nuclear power plant to Bushehr to Eurodif to Rossing uranium mine to etc etc, NPT has been a failure and a cause of harm for Iran. Laws that are one way streets to protect the master race have no value anymore. The lawyers who use such laws as the basis for their reasons are worthless too. As she stated herself the statues were written by victorious white men. No arguments there.

    2) Mr. Houck implied that Iranians are some how now “allies” in wrestling. What ever that means. Well, the latest news of sentiments of Iranians show that most of Iranians rightly or wrongly believe the wrestling decision by IOC was done to specifically hurt Iran (wrestling is Iran’s national sport) and this was done under direct order of western bloc. He also mentioned the professionalism of Iranian and American naval forces, which I believe is a lie. During 1990’s when US was drunk from its newly found unopposed military power and was roaming Persian Gulf with dozens of military bases in Arab lands across Iranian shore, the US naval professionalism was at display. According to published material by US naval personnel, the US fighter bombers used to do aerial maneuvers near Iranian aerospace simulating a nuclear weapon launch.

    The Iranian air defense radar operators were US trained and knew about these specific aerial maneuvers during a nuclear weapon launch by a bomber air craft. In fact the US military personnel in recounting the events singled out the fact that this was being done to spook the Iranian military and “scare” them. I am sure more than once Mr. Khamenei had been informed of an imminent nuclear launch against Iranian cities. I wonder how “spooked” he must have been. The reason US naval forces have become more professional in recent years with regard to Iran, is because Iranian military power has been increasing specially with industrial production of anti-ship cruise missiles and the ballistic missiles.

    3) Mr. Maluwa did not know what he was talking about. He should read more. Comparing the government of Iran with Apartheid South Africa was so shocking that I wanted to write here a lengthy lecture full of phenotype terminology and massive use of MalcomX language. But I let it lay as I assume it was out of pure innocent ignorance and also because this blog belongs to Mr. Maluwa’s colleagues.

    4) At the end it was evident that only nuclear weapons can guarantee Iran’s security. All the international law and its enforcing institutions are for the benefit of the master race. There is no law for protection of Iranians. It was all written by white men, interpreted by white men or pseudo-white man and implemented by white men.

  55. BiBiJon says:

    Scott Lucas is commenting at


    I don’t have the patience. Some of you might like to challenge his nonsense.

  56. Richard Steven Hack says:

    New Media Scoop to Wage War on Iran: “Specialized Magnets”, Alleged “Fast-Track” to Atomic Weapons Capability

  57. Richard Steven Hack says:

    I see BibiJon and Irshad have been over to Arms Control Law to bash Scott Lucas. I just added my two cents worth of bashing.

    Scott’s post uses the tried-and-true trick of trying to shift the issue from the US animosity to Iran to Iran’s internal political system and civil rights issues. Then he tries to use that to discredit the Leveretts as “apologists” for the Iranian system.

    We know this nonsense is utterly irrelevant but this is a standard trick that people need to look out for. The proper rebuttal is that discussions of Iran’s political system or internal governance are irrelevant to the issue of rational and “realist” US foreign policy, let alone the nuclear issue. When we’re talking about the possibility of another massive war in the Middle East, diversion to irrelevant issues belies a hidden agenda.

    Because regardless of the Iranian regime’s treatment of its own people, a WAR is going to kill literally hundreds of thousands, if not a million or more, people – a fate worse than any political crackdown on dissidents. So people need to keep focused on the irrationality of the US approach to Iran, and specifically the nuclear issue.

  58. jay says:

    fyi says:
    February 16, 2013 at 8:31 pm

    You may be correct in your assessment. Yet, James must be asked to account for his assertions. If he does not believe in sovereign rights, then he must state it explicitly. If he believes in sovereign rights, then he must explain why Iran needs to compromise on her rights.

    I tend to agree with you in that the answer lies – at least partly – in the total dysfunction of UN, IAEA, IC, and other international institutions. This dysfunction has received de facto acceptance by some individuals – they are comfortable with the notion that “that is the way it is!” Yet, in the spirit of debate here, we must ask those individuals to be clear about their assumptions and assertions.

  59. fyi says:

    Smith says:

    February 17, 2013 at 3:45 am

    The traditional cultures understood the supreme achievement of human female to be motherhood.

    They also treated women no as toys but as wombs.

    Both in the United States, a commercial culture, and the former USSR, the supreme value of human female was radically re-defined to be the same as the male; i.e. participation in labor.

    Therefore, in both states, prostitution became the epitome of female financial achievement.

    In US, the culture advises young women to spent their most fertile years in competition with men in obscure factory of clerical jobs. For men, on the other hand, marriage, which used to be a badge of honor, has become a massive burden.

    God knows that Axis Powers are suffering from very deep social problems yet they are at all times obsessing with the status of women among Muslims (never among Chinese or Hindus).

  60. James Canning says:


    I think you are simply dead wrong to claim the P5+1 want an end to all Iranian enrichment of uranium. Why would John Kerry have hinted he is willing to accept Iranian enrichment to 5%, if he is adamantly opposed to such enrichment? Some neocons complain that the P5+1 already offered to accept Iranian enrichment to 5%.

  61. Richard Steven Hack says:

    Idiot David Albright makes another blunder…nicely debunked here.

    Iran Buys Magnets That DO NOT FIT Its Centrifuges

  62. James Canning says:


    I will say this again: I think the P5+1 will accept Iranian enrichment to 5%. They will not accept Iranian enrichment to 20%.

    William Hague made clear just the other day that the primary immediate problem is Iranian stockpiling of 20% U far in excess of its need for such material to produce fuel for the TRR. (I refer to Feb. 5, 2013 statement by the British Foreign Secretary.)

    I think Iran on its own accord needs to suspend enriching to 20%. Why? Because it will lower the temperature.

  63. James Canning says:


    Iran is quite capable of negotiating with Pakistan, on equal terms. Despite your contention to the contrary.

  64. James Canning says:


    I too have questioned the reasoning behind the American demand that Iran stop all enriching of uranium, if the P5+1 will be obliged to accept such enrichment if a deal is to be achieved.

    For that matter, why has the US so stupidly refused to back William Hague’s sensible suggestion that TRR fuel should be sold to Iran?

  65. Richard Steven Hack says:

    Nasrallah warns Israel against attacking Lebanon

    This is, of course, precisely WHY Israel WILL attack Lebanon. Israel can’t afford to have a war with Iran with Hizballah able to damage the Israeli economy severely with its missile arsenal. So Israel has no choice but to attack Hizballah, probably this year under cover of a US/NATO attack on Syria.

  66. Smith says:

    The confused case of western press with regard to Iran: http://abcnews.go.com/International/wireStory/irans-leader-steps-deeper-political-fray-18525079

    Some times I think Iran has a much more sophisticated political structure than even the west. And this might be the reason why alot of people seem not understand it in the west.

  67. wjm says:

    I sometimes engage in discussions online. The following is the comment of another. A comment that is thought provoking to me. Here’s the comment from another;

    I personally look at the US vs. Israel / Iran ‘fake’ story for what it is, based on things like ‘strategy’ and ‘motive to invade’ and ‘motive to use PR propoganda to perpetuate a myth of the ‘fake’ war to cover up the ‘reality’ of the way that actually the US / Israeli / Russian / Iranian relationship as part of the CIA ‘war of terror’ and how it actually works in real terms.

    1. If you want to compare the motive of the invasion of Iraq. First you have to look at the fact that Iraq was invaded due to the fact that Halliburton had planned the take-over of the Iraqi oil fields 6 months before the invasion took place. In Iran, Halliburton are already drilling in Iran, quite happily, hence ‘no reason to invade’.
    2. In relation to Israel, the prime reason for existence for the Russian mafia Zionist state is to cover up the Anglo-Iranian BP oil pipeline hence, therefore Iranian oil is the prime reason for existence of the Russian mafia oil pipeline state with Iranian oil being processed in the Haifa oil refinery from the start. Hence, again, no reason for Israel to want to jeopardise their primary reason for existence, by any threat against Iran.
    3. If you want to consider how long Israel and the US have been discussing the ‘threat of Iran’ – it’s been for a very long time. Almost 10 years, and nothing has actually happened. That’s not very conventional policy if you want to actually invade a country, since most people who want to invade somewhere tend to normally ‘not’ discuss it, and instead normally will just ambush a place with no discussion in order to use the element of ‘surprise’. Talking about invading a country for 10 years and not actually doing it, therefore is going to defeat that basic foundation of conventional military strategy of ‘surprise’ from the start. For example when Iraq and Libya were invaded, there was no lengthy discussion about ‘the invasion’ over 10 years. Talking about invading while not actually invading for 10 years, is not the same as an invasion and therefore can not be seen as the same thing. The US are already present in many different countries internationally with absolutely no mention in the international media, and so therefore I would therefore state that to discuss the ‘threat of Iran’ permanently in the media while not actually doing anything, can only therefore be seen for what it is, a total farce. Having lengthy diplomatic discussions in the media about the ‘fake pretend war’ and not actually doing anything at all, therefore can not be seen as the same thing, and therefore totally ridiculous to classify as any kind of real ‘war’ of any substance at all.
    4. If you want to discuss analysis from experts in relation to the nuclear threat and Israel and Iran, for example instead, you can refer to Mordechai Vanunu who was an nuclear scientist working at the Dimona nuclear site in Israel who was imprisoned for almost 20 years as a result of bringing to the world’s attention that Israel’s nuclear program (which is already well known internationally) was not declared to the IAEA despite Israel’s nuclear program being set up as part of the international nuclear weapons processing industry from the start. Mordechai’s theory therefore in relation to the Iranian nuclear program that was set up by Kissinger under the Nixon adminstration to re-process US nuclear waste in the 60s, with Dick Cheney now selling nuclear technology and parts to Iran via Halliburton in the modern age, instead is that the only reason that the US and Israeli politicians continually point the finger to ‘Iran’ is simply to hide any international attention to require the Israeli nuclear program to be ‘accountable’ to the IAEA. In my view, the reason for that is quite basic. Since Israel was set up primarily using mercenaries from Russia for its primarily reason for existence, the connections with the Russian mafia within Israel are extensive. This means that large quantities of Russian nuclear weapons that have been sold from the Russian nuclear arsenal after the Soviet collapse are now being processed and re-distributed through the Dimona site. The reason that the Israeli politicians therefore refuse any attention for the Dimona site to be examined by the IAEA can only be therefore for one reason, to remain unaccountable, so that the nuclear weapons distributed globally from this site, are untracked and unaccountable in front of the world. This means one thing, the Russian / Israeli mafia using these nuclear weapons as part of a massive global nuclear weapon international Russian roulette ‘blackmail’ threat.
    Finally I’d also say the US military only invade places that are guaranteed to be ‘easy’ targets and to have an economic return. Again, from that point of view, there is no reason for Iran to be invaded. Finally, as stated above, Halliburton already drill in Iran, and provide Iran with nuclear technology. Iran is already part of the CIA torture and murder assets and used as part of the ‘war of terror’ against the Sunni Muslim populations of both Iraq and Syria now, so from my point of view, I would state, there is no reason to invade.

  68. kooshy says:

    fyi says:

    February 17, 2013 at 12:31 pm

    This two old men presentation at the WI was a joke

  69. Sakineh Bagoom says:


    I wonder if you consider this, a Nixon to China moment? A let up in belligerence and hostility.

  70. Persian Gulf says:


    “سوم: اصل اساسی که حلقه انحراف به سبب برخورداری از هوش پایین و عدم تحلیل درست از رفتار توده‌های جامعه به آن ملتفت نشده این است که “مانایی خزان و بهار” فقط و فقط وابسته به خواست مردم است و لاغیر. مردمی که نشان داده‌اند با گفتمان‌های منطبق بر انقلاب اسلامی موافقتر‌ند و همواره به ذائقه‌های جدید سیاسی که به اسلام ناب، قانون و پیشرفت کشور علاقه نشان می‌دهند نظر مثبت داشته‌ و دارند.

    معلوم نیست حلقه انحراف با کدام استدلال و گمانه به این نتیجه رسیده است که مردم ایران شرایط کنونی را “بهار” و “ربیع” می‌دانند و بدتر اینکه قصد دارند این شرایط را نیز حفظ کنند و دوباره به همین گفتمان اِلینه شده رأی آری بدهند؟! جالب آنکه تبارشناسی رفتار سیاسی مردم ایران نشان می‌دهد که آنها حتی به گفتمان‌های تجربه شده هم رأی نداده‌ و ادامه آنها را نخواسته‌اند چه رسد به گفتمان خزان زده‌ای که خود را بهار معرفی می‌کند.”

    so true!

    محمود فعلا توهم زده! امر بهش مشتبه شده که خیلی محبوبه و طرفش رای میاره. وقتی چند ماه دیگه طرفش در بهتری حالت 5-6 میلون رای آورد می فهمه که این تو بمیری از اون تو بمیری ها نیست!

  71. kooshy says:

    Sakineh Bagoom says:
    February 17, 2013 at 8:14 pm

    Since I enjoy western media funny news articles, this was the best part on the article you posted the link did you notice how they mention “The President Elect” Maryam Khanoom

    “But Maryam Rajavi, president-elect of the National Council of Resistance of Iran, said through a spokesman that “there has been no change in resettlement since last week” and “a similar attack can take place any day and any minute.”

  72. kooshy says:

    wjm says:
    February 17, 2013 at 4:26 pm

    If you send a copy of your comment to Fred Hiatt of Washington post I am sure you will get a job with WP, they can use more people like you, Joby and David (s)

  73. fyi says:

    James Canning says:

    Mr. Hague, Mr. Kerry and others are lying.

    Their utterances are as trustworthy as those of officials of the Third Reich or USSR.

    NPT is dead, CWT is dead, Peace of Yalta is dead, Peace of Westphalia is dead.

    There is only a new age of barbarism ahead in which the strongly armed states will survive.

  74. fyi says:

    kooshy says:

    February 17, 2013 at 6:26 pm

    Ambassador Pickering, building on a suggestion made by Dr. Salehi, is indicating a path for P5+1 to climb down from their perch. In effect, he is suggesting a face-saving diplomatic opening to P5+1 leaders.

    I expect him to be ignored – as he has been over the last 6 years.

    The other gentleman, is behind times.

  75. James Canning says:


    William Hague is “lying” about what? That Iran is enriching far more 20% U than is needed to operate the TRR? Or, that this enrichment is the primary problem at this time?

  76. yemi says:

    James Canning says:
    February 18, 2013 at 1:04 pm

    Who is setting limit for who asper enrichment enrichment is concerned?
    You, westerners or IAEA?