1 The court noted that “ ‘[a]bsent a clearly expressed legislative intention to the contrary, that language must ordinarily be regarded as conclusive.’ ” 655 F.Supp. 1275, 1277 (quoting Consumer Prod. Safety Comm’n v. GTE Sylvania, Inc., 447 U.S. 102, 108 (1980)).

2 Id.

3 Id.

4 28 U.S.C. §1332(a)(4) (1982) provides for suits between “a foreign state . . . as plaintiff and citizens of a State or of different States.”

5 The court noted that “[n]onrecognition of a particular government” indicates that the United States Government has refused “ ‘to regard that government as the legitimate spokesmanin international affairs for the people it purports to govern.’ ” 655 F.Supp. at 1278(quoting Federal Republic of Germany v. Elicofon, 358 F.Supp. 747, 752 (E.D.N.Y. 1972), aff’d, 478 F.2d 231 (2d Cir. 1973), cert, denied, 415 U.S. 931 (1974)).

6 Id. (citing Republic of Vietnam v. Pfizer, Inc., 556 F.2d 892, 894 (8th Cir. 1977); Elicofon, 358 F.Supp. at 756–57).

7 Id. (citing Windert Watch Co. v. Remex Electronics Ltd., 468 F.Supp. 1242, 1244 (S.D.N.Y. 1979)).

8 Klausner v. Levy, 83 F.Supp. 599 (D. Va. 1949); Windert Watch Co., 468 F.Supp. at 1242.The court also discussed several other cases in this context, including Murarka v. Bachrack Bros., 215 F.2d 547 (2d Cir. 1954); Cedec Trading Ltd. v. United Am. Coal Sales, 556 F.Supp.722 (S.D.N.Y. 1983); and Tetra Fin. (HK) Ltd. v. Shaheen, 584 F.Supp. 847 (S.D.N.Y. 1984).

9 Slip op. at 8. In its discussion of the facts of the case, the court recounted the history of political turmoil in Iran during 1979–1980, noting that the United States had severed all diplomatic relations with the Government of Iran on Apr. 7, 1980.

10 Id. at 1280.

11 Id. at 1281. See, e.g., Farman-Farmaian Consulting Eng’g Firm v. Harza Eng’g Co., No. 87 C 1599 (N.D. 111. filed Feb. 19, 1987).