The Persian Puzzle: The Conflict Between Iran and America

This book provides an in-depth accounting of the American-Iranian relationship. The book focuses very little on ancient Iranian history - instead picking up with the 1953 coup against Mossadeq, the Pahlavi shahs, the 1979 Revolution, and the US-Iranian issues that have stemmed from those incidents. After detailing the history, the author explains why President Clinton's effort to renew ties with Iran failed. He also explains in great detail the temporary end of Iran's reformist counterrevolution, which fizzled out when President Khatami failed to challenge the right-wing clerics in control of Iran in the late 1990s. He paints a troubling picture of anti-Americanism emanating from Iran - sometimes irrational, other times understandable. His major cause of concern is Iran's nuclear weapons program, which he thinks can be derailed only by a united world (USA, Europe, China, Russia, etc). The book basically runs through recent Iranian history and US-reactions. In the end, he advocates a particular policy (keep the Grand Bargain on the table, don't attack Iran, unite the world to stop its nuclear weapons program, etc). It is a great (yet long) book. This one is not for you if you can only stay with a book for 200 or 300 pages. But if you hang in, you will emerge smarter than you entered, as I did.

This is an excellent introduction to both the history of US-Iranian relations and the current conflict between the two countries. It is not a history of Iran, or a book about Iran per se. I say that, for while the 428-page text packs loads of information, it is selected to emphasize facts relevant to US-Iranian relations and ignore other issues, so one looking for a history of Iran should look elsewhere. The book is premised on the belief that Americans know too little about Iran and Iranians know to much about what they think is the truth about America. That is, in a wonderful phrase, Pollack says that Americans are "serial amnesiacs" who are blissfully ignorant of the outside world until a country like Iran does something bad, then we "learn" that a country out there is angry at us, and then we forget again when the crisis passes. Yet while Americans care nothing for Iran, Iranians are obsessed with the U.S. and are constantly replaying for themselves a version of history which is a mix of fact and fiction, and this makes it hard for them to deal with the present. The book does contain a lot of relevant historical background. In fact, the first 12 chapters trace relations between Iran and first Britain and then the U.S. up through the Bush administration in 2004 (the book was published at the beginning of 2005 and the information cut-off appears to be early 2004). Only the last chapter analyzes the current situation and the options available to the U.S. The value of this book is indeed the background. I take five broad points away from Pollack's analysis. First, the first five chapters running up through the Islamic revolution in 1979 are invaluable to understanding why Iranians, including many of the majority who do not support the current regime, are distrustful of the U.S. Britain exploited Iran ruthlessly during the colonial period, and the 1953 coup happened mainly because Britain wouldn't accept a 50/50 division of profits on oil royalties. Although the U.S. pressured Britain to compromise, we did engineer the coup of Mossadeq, and this fact gave rise to the myth that the U.S. controlled the Iranian government from then on out. This bred an obsession with foreign influence which is ably exploited by the current regime in Tehran. Second, the behavior of revolutionary (post-1979) Iran can be modified by deterrence in tactical matters but not strategic ones. Reagan's failure to strike back at Iran for the various hostage takings and killings of Americans during the 1980s emboldened them, while a rout of the Iranian navy and the 1991 defeat of Iraq restored that deterrent posture partially. Iran was also worried in the late 1990s that European public opinion would cause Europe to launch U.S.-style economic sanctions, and combined with the threat of massive retaliation to the Khobar Towers attack (the Saudis wanted the U.S. to bomb Iran back to the Stone Age after that 1996 attack), this caused Iran to moderate its terror sponsorship in t

Kenneth Pollack worked for 7 years as a Persian Gulf military analyst at the CIA and for 3 years as Director for Gulf affairs at the National Security Council official. As the reader may know, Pollack's previous work was "The Threatening Storm". In it, he provided a historical perspective to the relations between Iraq and the U.S., and thoroughly analyzed alternatives for engagement based on the information available. With "The Persian Puzzle", Pollack sets again the standard in foreign policy books. He offers a technical and non-partisan perspective to the history of Iran, its relation with other countries (especially the UK, the USSR/Russia, the US and its Middle Eastern neighbors) and its internal political struggles and infighting. This takes almost 90% of the text. The remaining 10% (around 50 pages) is invested to detailing alternatives for future engagement with Iran. Different than with Iraq, Pollack suggest a combination of approaches might be the the best option to deal with Iran from an American standpoint. I have found this a truly top-notch work. Here is why: - Historical perspective: Pollack provides a historical background to Iran, starting with the Elamites (the first people to civilize what is Iran today, more than 1000 BC), and including the chaos brought by Gengis Khan, the ascendence of Shi'ism, the difficult relation with Russia and Great Britain in the first half of the XX century, Reza Khan and his son the Shah, the involvement of the US (positive and negative) starting mainly from World War II, Khomeini's revolution and the Embassy incident, the Rafsanjani, Khatami administrations and how they interacted with the US (and viceversa). - Non-biased, non-partisan view: Pollack acknowledges what now in hindsight were mistakes of US policy regarding Iraq, but does not seem to put the blame on a party, administration or person in particular. He also provides a context and tries to come with a rational explanation for them. In addition, he does not try either to put Iran or its government (or its people) as culprits or bad-intentioned. He goes the extra mile to understand their world view. - Structure: this is a well thought book. It was not written in a rush. And the author has a clearly structured mind. The flow is very easy. There is a good sense of purpose for everything. The story is built in such a way that makes sense. The history of Iran comes first, with more intensity and details as the text brings us to the present. - Rationality: it does not seem that Pollack wants to "prove us a point" and has written a book to "sell us his plan". He thoroughly analyzes the issue and presents all its details, complexities and paradoxes. Yes, he comes with a proposed solution, but it is not the main point of the book; it just comes as a final chapter and as his personal tack on how to solve a very difficult problem. Notwithstanding the above, my only concern with this work is the content of Pollack's suggested proposal. Its s

I approached this book not knowing really what to expect, i.e.: does the book try to justify past US policies or is it a rational discussion. It is the latter. The author tries to clear the political air in the introduction and set the record straight on why we have problems with Iran. He uses a direct quote from the Iranians regarding a speech from Secretary Albright who acknowledges the over 25 years of US interference in the politics and leadership of Iran starting with the shah in 1953 and ending with the aid to Iraq during the Iran-Iraq conflict in the 1980's. This of course is contrary to public posture at home that our actions are about promoting democracy abroad. It is clear that past actions against Iran were to promote US commercial, trade, and strategic defense interests at the expense of the Iranians. So that admission up front is refreshing. Many Iranians had expected help from the US, not a new imperial power to replace Britain and Russia that had dominated Iran for most of the 19th century and half of the 20th century. So the question now is simply this: can we build a new relationship, especially with that 200 history of mistrust with Russia, Britain, and America? The book is somewhat long and can be described as comprehensive; it is well written suitable for the average reader and it is a fairly quick and light read. The pages seem to whiz by like a Jack London novel. It has about 428 pages of main text with five maps, and is followed by 60 pages of notes and a bibliography approximately 25 pages in length. It covers 13 subjects including a history of Iran, the shah, the rise of US influence in Iran, the hostage crisis, the Iran-Iraq war, and the post 1980 political developments in Iran. The first chapter - about 30 pages long - presents a short history of Iran including the dealings between Iran and Britain and Russia. That takes the reader to approximately the year 1900 - 1914. After that there are two chapters that lead us through the events surrounding the ousting of the Iranian leader Mosaddeq by royalist troops in 1953. The author thinks that a certain myth has developed about the coup that overstate the American-British role and, in Iranian mind's at least, to exaggerate the role of the CIA. In the next 70 to 80 pages the author takes us through the 25 year reign of the shah, his spending, his use of terror, and the inequities in Iranian society which finally trigger the fall of the shah. The Iranians tend to equate America with the reign of the shah, and the failure of the US to apply human rights standards to that country while espousing them at home, especially by Carter. The next 200 pages describe the developments related to Iran from 1980 going forward including many details on the primary Iranian political figures, the long and exhausting war with Iraq, the current and past Iranian views of the US in the 1990's, Islamic fundamentalism, supporting terrorism against mainly Israel, Iranian designs on controlling the

I am halfway through this book and find it quite fascinating. The history of how Iran was abused through the ages is unheard of in our hemisphere. Knowing how England and Russia played games with Iran helps understand the paranoia that Iran had thinking that we were pulling the strings of the Shah: Iranians had a right to be paranoid. I just wish we were as powerful as they thought, we would have either propped up the Shah or brought down Khomeni. This book is an easy read, well written, filled with facts and quotes from the time periods mentioned. It is a scholarly book, not one for a sunny day unless you want to sit down and study it, it is a serious history, not a novel. http://rescueattempt.tripod.com