Confronting Iran: The Failure of American Foreign Policy ... (ISBN 0465003516)

Historical Insights-Modern Applications:
Within the pages of Confronting Iran one may find an excellent history on the Iranian relationship with multiple world power players. The policies of the United States and Britain, and to a lesser degree Iraq and Russia, are prominently and intricately worked over. Another product of this reading is a respect for the sovereignty of this ancient nation and her idyllic peoples. It isn't difficult to accept a 'West is Best' mentality when you've known nothing else. With praise appropriately placed for Mr. Ansari's accomplishment in Confronting Iran, it is appropriate to note that his affections are by no means hidden or misunderstood. The sympathetic viewpoints of the author lend to an overshadowing question! Where are we going? Perhaps it is just too difficult to accept, at face value, the submissions of a learned man that opens his writing with the following statements. " It is generally accepted that all nations and states are rooted in a series of foundation myths...". " A good example in the United States is the myth of the Founding Fathers and the American Revolution...". Little more need be said.

Good Book:
Well written book. Breaks down the history of Iran and the way our policies shaped our present views of the country.

A largely unorganized and unfocused rehashing of conventional wisdom:
Although Confronting Iran has some merits (albeit only a few), the shortcomings of this book are what unfortunately stand out. Had I not just finished Trita Parsi's book Treacherous Alliance: The Secret Dealings of Israel, Iran, and the United States, I would have reacted more favorably to Ansari's book, but at the end of the day, if you're only going to read one book concerning Iran and the U.S., there is absolutely no excuse to pick up Confronting Iran. To begin, the title is somewhat misleading. It implies a history of the interaction between the U.S. and Iran, which is not necessarily what you'll find. A little more than halfway through the book, it seems as if the title was merely an attempt to grab attention in order to sell more copies since Iran is in the news as much as it is. A large part of the book focuses on domestic Iranian politics. This is only problematic because it strays from what the book allegedly sets out to do, and in any case, the author doesn't convincingly connect the domestic parts of the book to the overall theme. One of the highlights of the book is the context provided behind Ahmadinejad's election and that it was not the result of the Iranian public overwhelmingly choosing him, but rather that fraud was rampant, and that with four reformist candidates also running, the splitting of their votes helped a hard-liner come to office. Something that made me wary of the domestic Iranian portions of the book though, is that Ansari's narrative of the relationship between the U.S. and Iran was nothing more than a rehashing of conventional wisdom. Again, had I not just read Parsi's book, this would not have seemed as glaringly obvious, but the contrast between the two books are nothing short of stunning. One of the reasons for this is the absence of much in the way of cited sources in Ansari's book. He seems like he's just taking the accepted narrative of these events and not really examining them. Parsi, on the other hand, went to great lengths to interview as many participants as possible, providing a much more complete picture of the subject in about the same amount of pages. I felt as if I learned something important on every page of Parsi's book. Confronting Iran however, couldn't be farther from that feeling. I felt as if I learned very little new information. Considering the complexity of the subject, it seems pointless to provide such a bland narrative. The only real audience for this book is the type of person that knows absolutely nothing about the subject, and kind of wants to get a basic idea of how things unfolded. People well-versed in the subject will find very little of interest in this book unfortunately. Ansari deserves credit for trying to foster a dialogue or a greater understanding of the subject, but the bulk of the book fails to live up to these aims. The only place where he attempts to go beyond conventional wisdom is his comparison of some of the hard-line elements in Iran to the neoconservatives in the U.S. It's kind of a lazy comparison, that isn't really accurate in anything other than a very broad context. This approach unfortunately is characteristic of the book as a whole. For a book that is more or less the same length, Confronting Iran fails to even remotely compare to Parsi's Treacherous Alliance.

A Timely Subject:
In the midst of a global war on terror in which Iraq likely represents the first point to fall in what President George W. Bush referred to as the "Axis of Evil", author Ali Ansari offers a thoughtful examination of American foreign policy efforts in the linchpin of the axis, the Islamic Republic of Iran. The result is a work that is as timely as it is captivatingly relevant. In Confronting Iran, Ansari questions not just the role of consistently flawed foreign policy in maintaining a fundamentally dysfunctional relationship with the troubled Shiite nation, but our own inevitable culpability in spawning a modern extremist state. According to Ansari, most Americans believe that Iran is "not just a member of the Axis of Evil, but the founding member, the chief sponsor of state terrorism . . ." From the outset, he lays bare our increasingly fallible policies, while at the same time exposing many of the myths that have perpetuated our national perceptions of Iran. Beginning with our duplicitous role as a potentially benevolent sovereign of emergent Persian nationalism in the aftermath of World War II, our foreign policy has been successively confused, incoherent, domineering, and antagonistic. Such inconsistency, according to Ansari, eventually alienated most Iranians and was ultimately the root cause of the 1979 hostage crisis. Americans in Iran were once seen as benefactors, at a time when our policy focused on ensuring the nation retained the ability to explore its nationalist desires with their British patrons. Shortly after taking office in 1953, President Eisenhower put America on a path that would forever alter the landscape of the Middle East. Under the auspices of growing concern for the spreading threat of communism, Eisenhower authorized the fateful coup of August 19, 1953, that overthrew the legitimate government of the popular premier, Dr. Mohammad Mosaddeq. While essential to reestablishing British control of the nationalized Iranian oil industry, the coup was generally perceived by Iranians as an unforgivable betrayal of trust. Following the coup, America's divisive role in Iran continued with the ascension of the Shah to power, ensuring a weak, easily manipulated ruler controlled the vast Persian oil reserves. U.S. support to the Mohammad Reza Pahlavi, whose own quarter century of exploitive practices were viewed as an extension of Western dominance and interference, further alienating an increasingly impoverished populace. When events finally boiled to a head in 1979, most American were ignorant of not just our policies over the previous decades, but how those policies had forever altered the perception of Americans in the region. In the years since, American policy toward Iran has either been outright hostile (the general approach of Republican administrations) or simply one of indifference (the Clinton approach). Yet, at a time when a policy of reconciliation would have been beneficial, America turned away from the conciliatory overtones of the Khatami government in the days after the 9-11 attacks. According to Ansari, the refusal of the Bush administration to open relations with Iran weakened Khatami's moderate government. This cleared the way for the extremist Mahmoud Ahmadinejad to take the reins of power, and to take the Islamic nation on a path that would further isolate Iran from the Western world. A member of the modern history faculty at the University of Saint Andrews in Scotland, Ansari holds a doctorate from the School of Oriental and African Studies at the University of London. The author of numerous books, articles, and studies on the history and politics of Iran and the Middle East, he appears regularly as a commentator for ABC, CBS, NBC, CNN, FOX, and National Public Radio. In Confronting Iran, Ansari clearly expresses his belief that Iran shares our desire for a stable Iraq. In the aftermath of the fall of the Taliban and the death of Saddam Hussein, Iran's strategic role in the region has evolved significantly. Rather than allow the Saudis and Syrians to control the destiny of Iraq, Iran has exerted great influence over the neophyte government, in hopes of avoiding the very "epic struggle" described by President Bush in his recent State of the Union Address. According to Ansari, opening a constructive dialog with Iran is an opportunity the Administration cannot ignore if we ever hope to achieve our own strategic objectives in the Middle East. Confronting Iran is an exceptional book, providing a succinct history of American involvement in Iran. Ansari's writing is equally direct, offering an analysis of U.S. foreign policy in the region that is as revealing as it is enthralling. For military readers, Confronting Iran is a "must read"; few books are as insightful, especially with respect to our role in what is arguably the most volatile region in our world. For readers with preconceived notions of Islamic anti-Americanism, this book is a necessary addition to the bookshelf.

A Good Introduction to U.S./Iran Relations:
A good book, that attempts to explain the impact of events such as the 1953 overthrow of the Iranian government, the 1979 Hostage Crisis, the Iran/Iraq War, 9/11, and Operations Enduring/Iraqi Freedom on Iranian/U.S. relations. The author specifically looks at the myths that surround these events in both countries, the conclusions drawn from these events by each country, and their impacts on the relationship between the U.S. and Iran. I liked the book because it is easily read and attempts to show how both the Iranian and U.S. systems of government can impede relations even when it is in the best interest of both governments to have dialogue and negotiate. I also believe that the author does a good job of demonstrating how both sides have missed opportunities to better relations. If you have read other books on U.S/Iran relations, this probably won't add much to what you already know. However, if this is your first look into this topic, I highly recommend this book to you.