Review: Confronting Iran

CONFRONTING IRAN The Failure of American Foreign Policy and the Next Great Crisis in the Middle East Ali M. Ansari New York Basic Books, 2006. 288pp, US$26.00 cloth (ISBN 0-465-00350-8).Ali Ansati has written a comprehensive history of Iranian-American relations from the 19th century to the rise of President Mahmoud A h m adi nejad in 2005. Mote impressively, he successfully navigates the various biased opinions that bedevil this subject One of Ansarfs main themes is the impact of national foundation myths on politics, foreign policy, and public opinion. He argues that a myth of has shaped US-Iranian relations for at least half a century. The American- led coup of 1953 was central to the Iranian story of victimization that changed the relationship from trust to mutual suspicion (5). The 1979 hostage crisis had a similar effect on how America saw Teheran.In order to end this destructive dynamic, An s ari argues, it is necessary for both Iranians and Americans to deconstruct these various myths and overcome their distrust through mutual understanding founded on history and culture and an acute awareness of the perceptions of the other (6). This recommendation is similar to former President Mohammad Khatami's call for a dialogue among civilizations, whereby intellectuals from two opposing nations would meet to discuss cultural, historical, literary, political, and social differences. Ansarfs thesis is commendable, but it is far more important today for Iran and the US to normalize their diplomatic relations first, especially in light of the ongoing American presence in Iraq.An s ari begins his narrative with Europe's first encounter with Iran during the golden years of the Safavid Dynasty (15 01-173 6). Although the Europeans initially came to Iran supplicants, not as conquerors during this period, the relationship changed dramatically once Iran began to destabilize under the Safavid' s successors, the Qajars (179 6-1 92 5). European colonizers aimed to exploit Iranian resources by war and deception. But although the United States had some economic interests in the region, it preferred not to get involved, which meant that Teheran's relations with Washington were less fraught than those with European capitals. An s ari' s discussion of this peaceful phase in Iranian -American relations is especially useful because it undermines any suggestion that the relationship has always been tense. However, in the 1950s the United States began to take an active role in Iranian domestic affairs. The 1953 coup, a response to Mohammad Mosaddeq's nationalization of Anglo- Iranian Oil, was a watershed moment (56). The events of 1953 not only achieved iconic status in the minds of Iranians, but were also simplified in order to suit the political agendas of various groups in the country (37).This argument touches on one of the central themes in Ansari's book: the self-interested manipulation of historical fact. …

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.