But what if the actions of a “legitimate political order”
extend to threats of the nuclear destruction of another country. And that these threats may become much more attainable if nuclear enrichment is achieved? Surely this issue is the primary one involved here? Stop threatening the destruction of Israel and the world will indeed treat Iran like a legitimate political order. How hard is that? The Leveretts don’t even discuss this.

(a) Iran is a superior country like Germany.If Germany issued these threats we would take them seriously, or

(b) Iran is a lunatic, repressive state run by stone-age morons. There are no gay Iranians. Let’s not take anything they say seriously. But let them go ahead with that nuclear enrichment thingie. Or,

(c) This is all Israel’s fault. Refer to lunatic first comment for further clarification.

A savvy economist would look at such a demographic and see markets! pent up demand! mutual benefit! a desperately needed path out of US crippling debt!

US Congresscritters, drunk on zioncaine, look at Iran and see the Other — a nation full of children they would like to starve, bomb, assassinate, punish, and incite to riot.

Do dead people buy imported goods?

Who is the irrational party?

The facts are:

1) There is ZERO evidence that Iran has a nuclear weapons program. This is the conclusion of all 16 US intelligence agencies AND Israeli intelligence.

2) There is ALMOST ZERO evidence that Iran has ever had a nuclear weapons program with the possible exception that Iran had a nuclear weapons FEASIBILITY STUDY ongoing during the time when Iran was afraid that Saddam Hussein in Iraq had one. Once the US overthrew Saddam and placed Shia political parties in control of Iraq in 2003, Iran promptly stopped that alleged feasibility program. At not time is there any evidence that Iran ever had an actual nuclear weapons development and deployment program.

3) Iran has no strategic or tactical use cases for nuclear weapons. It cannot compete with Israel, let alone the US, for nuclear parity, or even a credible threat absent at least some dozens of nuclear weapons. Nuclear weapons are only useful in the context of a deterrent and they can only deter when there are either approximately the same number of weapons on each side or a sufficient number of weapons as to provide a credible threat of major infrastructure destruction of the opponent.

4) Iran cannot construct nuclear weapons without being detected doing so and attacked by at least Israel and the US (once Iran retaliates against Israel for any such attack.) Nor can Iran construct nuclear weapons while being attacked by the US.

5) The Iranian leadership is well aware of these facts (points 3 and 4 above) and has repeatedly confirmed that because of them they have no interest in acquiring nuclear weapons.

6) The Iranian leadership has explicitly issued a religious edict against the possession of nuclear weapons which has the force of law in Iran. They have also offered to make this religious edict into a binding legal treaty under international law.

7) Any issues brought up by the IAEA concerning Iran’s nuclear weapons program have either been debunked as forgeries by independent researchers or apply solely to Iran’s behavior prior to 2003, when it gave up its alleged feasibility program. And most of the pre-2003 allegations in turn are based on document retrieved from a laptop which has been debunked by independent investigators as a likely forgery.

8) Iran has had more intrusive inspections of its nuclear program by the IAEA than any other country in history. The IAEA continues to certify that there has been NO diversion of nuclear materials to military purposes.

9) Other countries – notably South Korea and Brazil – have had similar or even more serious alleged “violations” of their Safeguards Agreement as Iran and not had anywhere near the attention paid to them over it.

Iran does not have a nuclear weapons program and will never have a nuclear weapons program. And the US knows it. Obama is lying to the US public about his motivations for sanctioning and threatening war on Iran just as George W. Bush did with regard to Iraq.

A negotiation to avoid military conflict, ease sanctions that are hurting Iranians, and resolve the nuclear issue? Absolutely.

But that’s not what the priority of this article — or indeed the book the Leveretts are pushing.

Their narrative of world affairs, based on assertion rather than analysis, is the simplistic “US is losing, Iran is winning”.

Perhaps more importantly, their eulogy for the Iranian regime — which has almost no reliable information — sweeps aside questions about legitimacy, justice, and human rights.

That’s a shame. If the Leveretts devoted their energy to working for the good of Iranians on all fronts — not just their caricature of US-Iranian relations — they could do some good.

Instead, they play their parts in a Washington Punch-and-Judy show — neocons v. regime defenders — that does no good.