The Persian Puzzle: The Conflict Between Iran and America

Just because Kenneth Pollack has never been to Iran and doesn't speak Farsi, doesn't mean that he is not knowledgeable on the topic of Iran. On the contrary, his book is well worth reading. However, since his knowledge of Iran comes from positions he has held in government, including positions at the CIA and in the White House, his view is inevitably one that sees things from a US foreign policy perspective.

First of all, he seems to be a one man cheerleading team for Israel. He describes how "Jerusalem embarked on the risky process of peacemaking..." (p. 263), with no mention of how much more risky peacemaking is when you're on the vanquished side of the conflict. He explains how Rabin was "plodding along the difficult road to peace" (p. 273), how he "had been so universally respected for his courage in trying to make peace" (p. 277), and how "Peres was more devoted to the cause of peace than Rabin had been" (p. 278). Moreover, Pollack considers the massacre by the Israeli army of more than 80 innocent civilians at Qana, Lebanon as a simple "shelling incident" (p. 280). To his credit, he does mention the Sabra and Shatila massacres in Beirut that were perpetrated by Maronite Christians (pp. 201-02), however he conveniently left out the part about Israel being cooperative and complicit in the whole affair and how this responsibility was confirmed by the investigation conducted in Israel by the Kahan Commission.

Another theme in Pollack's writing about Iran is a general contempt for the Iranian people. He says in one sweeping statement, for example, that "Iranian society has a powerful tendency toward anarchy" (p. 142). Pollack suggests that maybe this could be because their country is carved up into isolated communities by the mountains, although he doesn't explain why the Swiss don't tend toward anarchy as well. He also offers the argument that the Iranian people have "resented and resisted every government they have had over the last two millennia" (p. 142). This is another rather sweeping statement that would require much evidence to substantiate. The only evidence that he bothers to marshal for this assertion is his own paltry 26-page coverage of the first 1900 of that 2000 years.

And in a final expression of arrogance (a quality not unheard of in US foreign policy making), Pollack explains how impracticable an invasion of Iran would be. He expounds on all the obvious obstacles (Iran's geographical size, its population size, its ranges of rugged mountains) and then concludes that "as American units passed through the mountains en route to Tehran and other major cities in the interior, they would be hit constantly by Iranian insurgents" (p. 382). So, imagine this for a moment. You, your family, and your ancestors share the common heritage of a civilization that stretches back several thousand years. A foreign country invades your soil and when you resist they call you the insurgent. The American Heritage Dictionary defines an insurgent as one who rises in revolt against established authority. So Pollack would evidently consider the American army to be the "established authority" immediately upon invading Iran, and by implication that resistance against this authority would be illegitimate.

At bottom, Pollack's book is written from a typical US government perspective--and it is informative in that regard. However, if you are looking for objectivity or alternative views, I'm afraid you'll have to look elsewhere.

Delightful Read and Thought Provoking (26/28 people found this helpful)

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 Gulf region, suport of some Al Qaeda members by Iran, the Karine A incident, Hamas, the Geneva working group on Afghanistan, the Axis of Evil speech, Iranian nuclear weapons, etc.

Finally we have perhaps the most interesting chapter, a chapter on developing future US strategies. That is in fact the reason for the title of the book, The Persian Puzzle. Can we do anything to solve the problems short of a war? It is a puzzle that can be solved by either attacking Iran or more rationally attempting to develop a long term relationship with Iran, possibly following many paths in parallel. In the final analysis short of war it will be a decision to be made by Iran.

Whether you agree with everything the author presents in the book, or do not, one will find the book to be informative and stimulating. Easily 5 stars.

The Persian Puzzle: The Conflict Between Iran and America

Kenneth M. Pollack

Reader Reviews:

Iran from a US Government Perspective (7/9 people found this helpful)

Delightful Read and Thought Provoking (26/28 people found this helpful)

Similar Products

Categories