What do you think?
Rate this book
Going to Tehran
A FOREIGN POLICY MAGAZINE BOOK TO READ
Less than a decade after Washington endorsed a fraudulent case for invading Iraq, similarly misinformed and politically motivated claims are pushing America toward war with Iran. Challenging the daily clamor of American saber rattling, Flynt and Hillary Mann Leverett argue that America should renounce thirty years of failed politics, diplomacy and strategy and engage with Iran—just as Nixon revolutionized U.S. foreign policy by going to Beijing and realigning relations with China.
In Going to Tehran, former analysts in both the Bush and Clinton administrations, the Leveretts offer a uniquely informed account of Iran as it actually is today, not as many have caricatured it or wished it to be. They show that Iran's political order is not on the verge of collapse, that most Iranians still support the Islamic Republic, and that Iran's regional influence makes it critical to progress in the Middle East. Drawing on years of research and access to high-level officials, the Leveretts’ indispensable work makes it clear that America must “go to Tehran” if it is to avert strategic catastrophe.
Less than a decade after Washington endorsed a fraudulent case for invading Iraq, similarly misinformed and politically motivated claims are pushing America toward war with Iran. Challenging the daily clamor of American saber rattling, Flynt and Hillary Mann Leverett argue that America should renounce thirty years of failed politics, diplomacy and strategy and engage with Iran—just as Nixon revolutionized U.S. foreign policy by going to Beijing and realigning relations with China.
In Going to Tehran, former analysts in both the Bush and Clinton administrations, the Leveretts offer a uniquely informed account of Iran as it actually is today, not as many have caricatured it or wished it to be. They show that Iran's political order is not on the verge of collapse, that most Iranians still support the Islamic Republic, and that Iran's regional influence makes it critical to progress in the Middle East. Drawing on years of research and access to high-level officials, the Leveretts’ indispensable work makes it clear that America must “go to Tehran” if it is to avert strategic catastrophe.
496 pages, Paperback
First published December 20, 2011
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 42 reviews
October 18, 2012
Looking at some of the other reviews, I gather that this book is not overly popular (I'm pretty intuitive). However, I think that those who gave it low ratings and negative reviews are swayed (perhaps not surprisingly) by their own personal experiences with Iran and by other stories they have heard about the Islamic Republic. Regardless of your level of agreement with the argument or with the premise of the book, the Leverett's documentation and research were superb. There are pages and pages of notes, and they painstakingly work to show that their references and claim of expertise are not unfounded.
This book was a fireball. The Leveretts know that they hold an entirely unpopular view, but they are not afraid to stand tall and make their case for diplomatic relations with Iran. They lay out specific cases of Iran reaching out to the U.S., Iran assisting American in delicate Middle East situations, Iran volunteering for stricter and more widespread oversight of their nuclear program. Their facts were shocking, since the American media would never report overtures of that kind. At the very least, it has to make you question why we are only allowed to hear one side of the story. The reasons laid out in this book just make sense. It makes sense that America tries to ostracize Iran to achieve Middle East hegemony. It makes sense that those who rave against Iran have personal reasons for doing so that might prevent them from being neutral. Americans need to ask themselves what the reasons are for our sanctions against Iran, when we regularly deal with China, who has human rights violations galore. If we really are ostracizing and putting sanctions on Iran because we think they are an illegitimate, oppressive regime, then why don't we carry that strategy to other oppressive nations?
I think there was a great argument made to show why Iran is, contrary to popular belief, a legitimate nation. The Leveretts took common arguments against legitimacy and made a solid case to prove them wrong. They discussed the beginnings of the Islamic Republic, their elections, and more, and made a case for why the way Iran is right not really is the desire of the majority of the people. They also shredded the argument that Ahmadinejad's second election was staged. I consider myself to be a critical thinker, and their proof seems to hold up.
My largest issue with the book was their almost complete lack of reference to some of the human rights violations that took place and perhaps still take place in Iran. I still believe that regardless of what the regime does, it is not America's place to police the world, but I do think it is important to be aware of and discuss things that happen around the globe. They only referenced the children used in the Iran-Iraq War-- children who were promised entry to paradise, given cheap mass-produced keys to wear around their necks, and sent into fields to clear mines. That discussion in important and needs to happen. Similarly, the loss of civil liberties and many freedoms needs to be discussed within the context of the Iranian culture and the Islamic Revolution, but I didn't see that addressed enough. Perhaps that is because the Leveretts know that is a weak spot in their argument for accepting the Islamic republic.
There is so much more I could say about this book, but I think this was above all an important book to read. The relationship that we have with Iran is so nuanced, and the general public of America needs to realize that, rather than just accepting talking points from politicians on both sides of the aisle.
This book was a fireball. The Leveretts know that they hold an entirely unpopular view, but they are not afraid to stand tall and make their case for diplomatic relations with Iran. They lay out specific cases of Iran reaching out to the U.S., Iran assisting American in delicate Middle East situations, Iran volunteering for stricter and more widespread oversight of their nuclear program. Their facts were shocking, since the American media would never report overtures of that kind. At the very least, it has to make you question why we are only allowed to hear one side of the story. The reasons laid out in this book just make sense. It makes sense that America tries to ostracize Iran to achieve Middle East hegemony. It makes sense that those who rave against Iran have personal reasons for doing so that might prevent them from being neutral. Americans need to ask themselves what the reasons are for our sanctions against Iran, when we regularly deal with China, who has human rights violations galore. If we really are ostracizing and putting sanctions on Iran because we think they are an illegitimate, oppressive regime, then why don't we carry that strategy to other oppressive nations?
I think there was a great argument made to show why Iran is, contrary to popular belief, a legitimate nation. The Leveretts took common arguments against legitimacy and made a solid case to prove them wrong. They discussed the beginnings of the Islamic Republic, their elections, and more, and made a case for why the way Iran is right not really is the desire of the majority of the people. They also shredded the argument that Ahmadinejad's second election was staged. I consider myself to be a critical thinker, and their proof seems to hold up.
My largest issue with the book was their almost complete lack of reference to some of the human rights violations that took place and perhaps still take place in Iran. I still believe that regardless of what the regime does, it is not America's place to police the world, but I do think it is important to be aware of and discuss things that happen around the globe. They only referenced the children used in the Iran-Iraq War-- children who were promised entry to paradise, given cheap mass-produced keys to wear around their necks, and sent into fields to clear mines. That discussion in important and needs to happen. Similarly, the loss of civil liberties and many freedoms needs to be discussed within the context of the Iranian culture and the Islamic Revolution, but I didn't see that addressed enough. Perhaps that is because the Leveretts know that is a weak spot in their argument for accepting the Islamic republic.
There is so much more I could say about this book, but I think this was above all an important book to read. The relationship that we have with Iran is so nuanced, and the general public of America needs to realize that, rather than just accepting talking points from politicians on both sides of the aisle.
June 4, 2026
Few books have been so thoroughly vindicated by events as Flynt and Hillary Mann Leverett's Going to Tehran. Published in 2013, it argued that decades of US hostility toward the Islamic Republic of Iran rested on a fundamental misreading; that sanctions, isolation and threats would fail; that Iran would emerge from any direct confrontation stronger, not weaker; and that the only rational course was the kind of grand rapprochement Nixon had achieved with China in 1972.
The book was, of course, ignored. In the intervening years, the US has conducted exactly the campaign the Leveretts warned against, and in 2025–26 has been comprehensively defeated by the state it set out to break.
The authors are not anti-imperialist polemicists. Both are former senior US national security officials – Flynt in the CIA, State Department and on the NSC under George W. Bush; Hillary at State and on the NSC, and the US delegate in early-2000s talks with Iran on Iraq, Afghanistan and al-Qaeda. They walked away from Washington in disgust. Going to Tehran is the book they wrote afterwards, and it belongs to the older tradition of insider dissent – "how to save the empire from itself".
The central argument has three aspects. First: for nearly half a century, every US administration has treated the Islamic Republic as an illegitimate, irrational anomaly on the verge of collapse, when it is in fact a stable, popular, legitimate political entity with consistent strategic interests. Second: Washington cycles through the same three pretexts to justify hostility – weapons of mass destruction, terrorism, human rights – that it used to justify the invasion of Iraq, and which it manifestly does not apply to itself or its proxies. Third: this misreading has produced "imperial overstretch" – in the authors' phrase, "arguably the largest amount of influence and wealth squandered by a great power in the shortest period of time".
The Leveretts' proposed remedy gives the book its title: the United States must do with Tehran what Nixon and Kissinger did with Beijing in 1969–72: recognise it as a legitimate political entity, address its central interests, and build a relationship on the basis of mutual respect. In my view, what "going to Tehran" should mean in 2026 is the US finally honouring the third, much-forgotten pillar of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty: the commitment, first articulated by Eisenhower's 1953 Atoms for Peace doctrine, to share peaceful nuclear technology with non-nuclear states. The systematic Western violation of that commitment with regard to Iran – sanctions, sabotage, scientist assassinations, the bombing of civilian facilities – is the substantive content of the failure the Leveretts diagnose.
The Leveretts do the important work of analysing the ideological foundations of Iranian foreign policy: Khomeini's two foundational foreign-policy slogans, "neither East nor West" and "neither do injustice nor accept it"; the long historical memory of foreign manipulation (including the installation of the Pahlavi monarchy, the coup against Mossadegh, the West's role in fomenting the Iran–Iraq War) that animates Iranian non-alignment; the religious-legal fatwa against the manufacture of nuclear weapons; the constitutional commitment to independence that no Iranian government can trade away. This is rational-actor analysis of the first order, conspicuously absent from almost every other English-language treatment of the subject.
The vindication is brutal. Robert Kagan – co-founder of the Project for the New American Century, an architect of the war on Iraq – recently published a piece in the Atlantic titled "Checkmate in Iran", conceding that "the roles of China and Russia, as Iran's allies, are strengthened; the role of the United States, substantially diminished". Gideon Rachman writes in the Financial Times that "Iran is beating Trump at the art of the deal". Dan Shapiro, former US ambassador to Israel, concedes that Iran has "taken the United States' and Israel's best punch and survived". Thirteen years late, the establishment is tacitly conceding the book's central argument.
Note the book pre-dates the JCPOA, Trump's 2018 withdrawal from the JCPOA, the Soleimani assassination, the post-Ukraine geopolitical shift and of course the war on Iran itself.
A must read.
The book was, of course, ignored. In the intervening years, the US has conducted exactly the campaign the Leveretts warned against, and in 2025–26 has been comprehensively defeated by the state it set out to break.
The authors are not anti-imperialist polemicists. Both are former senior US national security officials – Flynt in the CIA, State Department and on the NSC under George W. Bush; Hillary at State and on the NSC, and the US delegate in early-2000s talks with Iran on Iraq, Afghanistan and al-Qaeda. They walked away from Washington in disgust. Going to Tehran is the book they wrote afterwards, and it belongs to the older tradition of insider dissent – "how to save the empire from itself".
The central argument has three aspects. First: for nearly half a century, every US administration has treated the Islamic Republic as an illegitimate, irrational anomaly on the verge of collapse, when it is in fact a stable, popular, legitimate political entity with consistent strategic interests. Second: Washington cycles through the same three pretexts to justify hostility – weapons of mass destruction, terrorism, human rights – that it used to justify the invasion of Iraq, and which it manifestly does not apply to itself or its proxies. Third: this misreading has produced "imperial overstretch" – in the authors' phrase, "arguably the largest amount of influence and wealth squandered by a great power in the shortest period of time".
The Leveretts' proposed remedy gives the book its title: the United States must do with Tehran what Nixon and Kissinger did with Beijing in 1969–72: recognise it as a legitimate political entity, address its central interests, and build a relationship on the basis of mutual respect. In my view, what "going to Tehran" should mean in 2026 is the US finally honouring the third, much-forgotten pillar of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty: the commitment, first articulated by Eisenhower's 1953 Atoms for Peace doctrine, to share peaceful nuclear technology with non-nuclear states. The systematic Western violation of that commitment with regard to Iran – sanctions, sabotage, scientist assassinations, the bombing of civilian facilities – is the substantive content of the failure the Leveretts diagnose.
The Leveretts do the important work of analysing the ideological foundations of Iranian foreign policy: Khomeini's two foundational foreign-policy slogans, "neither East nor West" and "neither do injustice nor accept it"; the long historical memory of foreign manipulation (including the installation of the Pahlavi monarchy, the coup against Mossadegh, the West's role in fomenting the Iran–Iraq War) that animates Iranian non-alignment; the religious-legal fatwa against the manufacture of nuclear weapons; the constitutional commitment to independence that no Iranian government can trade away. This is rational-actor analysis of the first order, conspicuously absent from almost every other English-language treatment of the subject.
The vindication is brutal. Robert Kagan – co-founder of the Project for the New American Century, an architect of the war on Iraq – recently published a piece in the Atlantic titled "Checkmate in Iran", conceding that "the roles of China and Russia, as Iran's allies, are strengthened; the role of the United States, substantially diminished". Gideon Rachman writes in the Financial Times that "Iran is beating Trump at the art of the deal". Dan Shapiro, former US ambassador to Israel, concedes that Iran has "taken the United States' and Israel's best punch and survived". Thirteen years late, the establishment is tacitly conceding the book's central argument.
Note the book pre-dates the JCPOA, Trump's 2018 withdrawal from the JCPOA, the Soleimani assassination, the post-Ukraine geopolitical shift and of course the war on Iran itself.
A must read.
May 19, 2013
Flynt and Hillary Mann Leverett lay out a comprehensive, compelling, well researched argument for their position, which is the consistent mismanagement of Iranian relations by the U.S. for the last twenty years, and it is absolutely worthwhile reading for people interested in international relations (first) and Iran (second). Because it is making a positional argument, it isn't a particularly good book for people who don't already have some grounding in Iranian history or politics. In order to get a complete and balanced look at the situation, you would need to read at least one other book on the subject, and maybe two or three. I was also hoping for a better look at the feelings and positions of ordinary Iranians when I picked this up (not with regard to the argument, just in general), but the book largely only focuses on policymakers, and only opinion polls are cited to represent ordinary citizens.
December 22, 2018
کتابی بسیار خوب که به طور دقیق دیدگاه هیأت حاکمه ی آمریکا را نسبت به ایران، از زبان دو تن از مقامات مطلع و رده بالا، بیان میکند و علت ادامه دار شدن مشکلات و دشمنی های بین این دو کشور را بر خلاف فضای رسانه ای، تقصیر ایالات متحده میداند و برای این حرف خود از لحظه لحظه ی روابط دو کشور در این چهل سال ذکر دلیل و مثال می آورد و همچنین راه بهبود این وضعیت را در اعتماد سازی نه از سوی ایران بلکه از سوی آمریکا می داند
May 30, 2026
بنظرم ژانر کتابهای مورد علاقه ام کلا عوض شده، خیلی از کتابهای سیاسی و تاریخی خوشم اومده. این کتاب هم یه جورایی تاریخ همه تحریمها و بدعهدیهاییه که آمریکا در قبال ایران داشته و تلاشهای ایران برای آشتی و از سرگیری روابط. خیلی روونه و خیلی متفاوت از همه چیزای دیگه ای که خونده بودم چون توی آمریکا روایت معمولا چپه ست توی همه روزنامه ها، کشورهایی که دارن از خاکشون دفاع میکنند تروریستن و کشورهایی که دارن توی خاک بقیه بچه میکشند تنها دموکراسی خاورمیانه!!! نمیدونم چی چی دموکراسی هست که سی ساله نخست وزیرش عوض نشده🤮 حداقل توی امریکا بین اکیپ هیلاری کلینتون و اکیپ بیلیونرها هر چهارسال یه بار یه تعویضی رخ میده با اینکه دموکراسی هم توی آمریکا عملا صفره.
March 7, 2013
In a time where U.S. and Israel are on the verge to attack Iran, this book is the best literal antidote to this impending folly war scheme to this date. Reading the book, you really understand how the
portrayal of Iran in western media and by western politicans are horrendusly flawed and how extremely misled - we, the people, really have become. The the demonization against Iran have made the
situation so tense that you almost cannot even raise the topic of Iran these days.
That is why this book are more than welcome.
This book (written by former State dep. US National Security Council and CIA members that had were part of negogiations with Iran), they, in general, demolish the lies, myths and misconceptions about Iran,
it dismantles the flawed western media portrayal of Iran that are daily pushed, primary by:
Israel> Neoconservatives & Israel Lobby> Liberal interventionists > Iranian exiles > Western "experts" on Iran
Leveretts nicely demolish the arguments from the above groups and show how wrong they are on topics such as Iranian election 2009, iranian domestic/foreign policies, their electoratal system, their
religious system, the statements and offer by Iran et.c. and how these flawed arguments affects the western view of Iran and also how their flawed arguments hurt american interests and also hurt chances of a
peace between Iran and the US. One could say that the views pushed by the groups mentioned above are a simplistic, orientalist view of Iran, as a backward, violent and irrational regime bent on destroying Israel.
Leveretts show how wrong this labeling are and what kind of dangerous policies that have come out of it.
The main argument Leveretts are making is what while US are loosing influence in the region, Iran is not, in fact Iran is expanding its influence througout the region, thus for US to keep
its interests alive and expanding they need to realign with Iran - they must come to terms, they must recognize the Islamic republic of Iran, that is - US need Iran's help in the region. Iran is a major
player in the region with vital ties to every issue going on in the middle east thus the constant hostility against Iran and the work-around them doesnt benefit the U.S., Leveretts fittingly compare the US/Iran situation with the US/China situation and propose the "Nixon goes to China"-model (or to apply the thesis today - "Obama goes to Tehran") to solve the issue with Iran.
In sum it is the best book out there that should be read by anyone that want to know Iran beyond the flawed western media and political portrayal and understand why its such a important state for America
and for the region and thus rest of the world. If I have to pick one that should read it, Obama would be the one since he have the power to stop this mad dash for war.
portrayal of Iran in western media and by western politicans are horrendusly flawed and how extremely misled - we, the people, really have become. The the demonization against Iran have made the
situation so tense that you almost cannot even raise the topic of Iran these days.
That is why this book are more than welcome.
This book (written by former State dep. US National Security Council and CIA members that had were part of negogiations with Iran), they, in general, demolish the lies, myths and misconceptions about Iran,
it dismantles the flawed western media portrayal of Iran that are daily pushed, primary by:
Israel> Neoconservatives & Israel Lobby> Liberal interventionists > Iranian exiles > Western "experts" on Iran
Leveretts nicely demolish the arguments from the above groups and show how wrong they are on topics such as Iranian election 2009, iranian domestic/foreign policies, their electoratal system, their
religious system, the statements and offer by Iran et.c. and how these flawed arguments affects the western view of Iran and also how their flawed arguments hurt american interests and also hurt chances of a
peace between Iran and the US. One could say that the views pushed by the groups mentioned above are a simplistic, orientalist view of Iran, as a backward, violent and irrational regime bent on destroying Israel.
Leveretts show how wrong this labeling are and what kind of dangerous policies that have come out of it.
The main argument Leveretts are making is what while US are loosing influence in the region, Iran is not, in fact Iran is expanding its influence througout the region, thus for US to keep
its interests alive and expanding they need to realign with Iran - they must come to terms, they must recognize the Islamic republic of Iran, that is - US need Iran's help in the region. Iran is a major
player in the region with vital ties to every issue going on in the middle east thus the constant hostility against Iran and the work-around them doesnt benefit the U.S., Leveretts fittingly compare the US/Iran situation with the US/China situation and propose the "Nixon goes to China"-model (or to apply the thesis today - "Obama goes to Tehran") to solve the issue with Iran.
In sum it is the best book out there that should be read by anyone that want to know Iran beyond the flawed western media and political portrayal and understand why its such a important state for America
and for the region and thus rest of the world. If I have to pick one that should read it, Obama would be the one since he have the power to stop this mad dash for war.
May 11, 2026
Really enjoyed this book, super informative, incredibly well researched. Nearly every claim made has a corresponding footnote leading you directly to the source. Reading it, I realized just how much I was steeped in neocon propaganda.
Took me about 15 hours to get through this book, and the whole time the authors are telling the reader hey we need to reach out to Iran and get out of this antagonistic relationship to prevent bloodshed and eroding the US's position as a global superpower due to a badly planned war with Iran. Too late!
Took me about 15 hours to get through this book, and the whole time the authors are telling the reader hey we need to reach out to Iran and get out of this antagonistic relationship to prevent bloodshed and eroding the US's position as a global superpower due to a badly planned war with Iran. Too late!
October 8, 2020
America has wanted to put an end to the government of Islamic Republic of Iran since it overthrew the Shah. Iran for the most part wants to enjoy the rights allowed to other nations. Going to Tehran shows Iran's efforts and history as a nation that strives for acceptance, demonstrates it is a sovereign state, and pursues its interests in a non-threatening way; It is the United States (practically by itself) that wishes to deny Iran its rightful position. This position seems to be at odds with what almost every American believes about Iran, even those who actually knowledgeable international relations or Middle affairs. The Leverett's provide more than ample of examples of Iran's efforts for acceptance.
The United State's policy with post revolutionary Iran has been a policy of buying time and moving a problem to the future rather than trying to solve anything. The U.S. refuses to deal with Iran as a legitimate state when in public. America creates issues and offers unattractive proposals. When they fail, the United States responds with sanctions. A more practical approach presented is treating Iran like Nixon did China. In 1972, Nixon visited China, America's enemy, who bent on its destruction, opened relations and entered into meaningful dialog. The situation was diffused and there have been stable relations since then.
Iran is viewed as a rogue nation supporting terrorism and wanting nuclear weapons. In the Iran-Iraq War, America's ally, Iraq used chemical weapons against Iran. Iran having chemical weapons refused to use them on moral grounds. Since the end of the Iran-Iraq, the United States spends seventy times more than Iran on defense. Saudi Arabia spends four times more than Iran spends on defense. The Iranian Revolution was about independence from foreign powers and ending (American) hegemony than spreading revolution or exporting Islam by sword. Iran does not have a military capable of exporting revolution, even if it wanted to; it can barely defend its own borders. Iran has 15 neighbors bordering it, none of them can be considered allies. It is Shite state surrounded by Sunni majority states. As far as concerns of supporting terrorism are concerned, Iran does have relations with Hezbollah (who since the 1990s, under the influence of Iran, has moved to becoming a political party instead of a terrorist group). However, America's enemies, the Taliban and Al-Qa'ida are Sunni groups supported by allies Pakistan and Saudi Arabia.
In 1988 the Taliban attacked an Iranian Consulate in Mazar e Sharif (Afghanistan) killing nine Iranians and hundreds of Shites in the area. Rather than retaliate, Iran went to the UN to find a solution. The result was the 6+2 Plan. Six neighboring states and the U.S. And Russia coordinate a response. There was not a unilateral retaliation but a responsible international effort.
During the Afghan War, Iran actively assisted the United States. It opened its borders for search and rescue, provided the US with intelligence, and gave the support of the Northern Alliance. An independent Afghanistan would secure a major border problem for Iran, something very positive and in the interest of Iran. Iran offered further support but it was turned down by the U.S. in favor of Pakistani and Saudi Arabian support, two of the largest supporters of Al Q'iada.
Iran is also popular in post Saddam Iraq. Iran's support for the Kurds and Shites has made Ahmadinejad more popular than other foreign leaders including American presidents. The Karzai received over $500 million from Iran. Iran is interested in trade and economic development in the new Iraq.
Iran's nuclear problems stem from the Ford Administration (including Cheney and Rumsfeld), where it was seen as a way for Iran to export more oil. Iran claims that nuclear weapons are not in their interest. First because they do not have the wealth to compete with the United States, and secondly like chemical weapons, nuclear weapons are against Islam. Iran is currently trying to enrich uranium to 20% for use in its research reactor. This is far below the 90% enrichment needed for nuclear weapons.
Iran sees itself as a regional power or a “soft power” basing its support not on military but on three other fronts. Cultural: many of the other states in the region have Shite minorities and Iran considers itself the cultural center of Shite in the reason. Political: Iran is an example of a stable state based on Islam and having democratic institutions and processes. Foreign Policy: Iran's foreign policy is not anti-US, but anti- US hegemony. It sees American policies as harmful, colonial, and repressive.
Iran has repeatedly opened itself to serious dialog with the US. Moderate leaders in Iran felt betrayed by the Reagan Administration. When the US asked Iran to use it's influence to secure the release of American hostages in Lebanon. The US promised arms in return (Iran was struggling in the Iran-Iraq War). There was not a program of giving arms to terrorists in exchange for hostages, but America paying Iran for its help. Iran held up its end of the bargain but the American government backed down after profits from the arms sales were discovered going to the Contras.
George H.W. Bush in his inaugural address said of Iran, “Goodwill besets goodwill.” Iran worked to free the hostages in Lebanon and gave quiet support to the U.S. lead Coalition war against Iraq. In return Iran was banned from the peace conference and was removed as a player in the New World Order. The Clinton Administration needed a way to get arms to the Bosnia Muslims without appearing to be an ally of the Bosnian and not breaking the arms embargo. The Clinton Administration turned to Iran for help. Iran agreed to help. For its help it is rewarded the U.S. blocking American oil companies from developing Iranian oil reserves, followed by economic sanctions, the first since the Iranian hostage ordeal. In 1996, after the Kobar Towers terrorist attack the US blames Iran even though the Saudi's insisted it was done by Saudis and intelligence pointed to Al Q'iada. Finally, Iran saw “hope” and “change” with the election of Obama as US president. Obama spoke of better relations and is the first president to call Iran by its proper name The Islamic Republic of Iran. Iran is still waiting waiting for change; but, instead there have been new rounds of sanctions. (Reported by the Washington Post, Iran again is open to talks with the United States 11/9/2012)
Iran has proved itself to be a legitimate and stable government. The United States believes that that unless Iran is a secular democracy, it remains a threat. This is counter to the view of Turkey, an ally, a largely Muslim country with open elections and when given given the choice, elects representatives from religious parties over secular leaders. Iran elects its leaders and representatives. To ensure representation seats are set aside for Christian, Jewish, and Zoroastrians. Iran demonstrates open elections, and peaceful transitions of power. As much as America believes Iran is a fragile government, it has survived a major war, elections, peaceful transitions of power, and the Green revolution. In the polarized American political system, both neoconservatives and liberal internationalists find themselves on the same side of the Iran issue. Neoconservatives still not forgetting or forgiving the Shah's overthrow and liberals wanting open democracy and human rights. This unusual position puts Iran in a unique and dangerous position.
The Leveretts provide a very well documented report on Iran and its history with the United States. Despite the documentation Going to Tehran does appear to be very one sided and if it were not for the credentials of its authors, one might think at times the book was written by the Iranian Information Ministry. However, the authors' purpose is to sway opinion and to take a new look at Iran who had been demonized since 1979. The argument that is presented is convincing. There will be arguments on human rights issues, but then too, leaders like Saddam Hussein, Pinochet, and Somoza were given full support of the United States. Nixon went to China. Reagan went to the Soviet Union. Why won't America go to Iran? Sooner or later Iran will tire of extending its hand only to have it slapped. It is doubtful that the United States and Iran will become allies, but assurances of peace or even diplomatic recognition would provide regional stability that both countries desire. While having an enemy for diplomatic saber rattling (or calling a Great White Satan), or rallying around the flag (or burning flags) is helpful for governments to maintain military strength or detracting populations from real issues, United States already has those enemies and they are also enemies of Iran. In all this book provides a straight forward, sensible approach to stability in the Middle East and South West Asia.
Full disclosure: This book was given to me as an advance copy, free from the publisher through Goodreads. My review based solely on my reading of the book and background/education in international relations.
The United State's policy with post revolutionary Iran has been a policy of buying time and moving a problem to the future rather than trying to solve anything. The U.S. refuses to deal with Iran as a legitimate state when in public. America creates issues and offers unattractive proposals. When they fail, the United States responds with sanctions. A more practical approach presented is treating Iran like Nixon did China. In 1972, Nixon visited China, America's enemy, who bent on its destruction, opened relations and entered into meaningful dialog. The situation was diffused and there have been stable relations since then.
Iran is viewed as a rogue nation supporting terrorism and wanting nuclear weapons. In the Iran-Iraq War, America's ally, Iraq used chemical weapons against Iran. Iran having chemical weapons refused to use them on moral grounds. Since the end of the Iran-Iraq, the United States spends seventy times more than Iran on defense. Saudi Arabia spends four times more than Iran spends on defense. The Iranian Revolution was about independence from foreign powers and ending (American) hegemony than spreading revolution or exporting Islam by sword. Iran does not have a military capable of exporting revolution, even if it wanted to; it can barely defend its own borders. Iran has 15 neighbors bordering it, none of them can be considered allies. It is Shite state surrounded by Sunni majority states. As far as concerns of supporting terrorism are concerned, Iran does have relations with Hezbollah (who since the 1990s, under the influence of Iran, has moved to becoming a political party instead of a terrorist group). However, America's enemies, the Taliban and Al-Qa'ida are Sunni groups supported by allies Pakistan and Saudi Arabia.
In 1988 the Taliban attacked an Iranian Consulate in Mazar e Sharif (Afghanistan) killing nine Iranians and hundreds of Shites in the area. Rather than retaliate, Iran went to the UN to find a solution. The result was the 6+2 Plan. Six neighboring states and the U.S. And Russia coordinate a response. There was not a unilateral retaliation but a responsible international effort.
During the Afghan War, Iran actively assisted the United States. It opened its borders for search and rescue, provided the US with intelligence, and gave the support of the Northern Alliance. An independent Afghanistan would secure a major border problem for Iran, something very positive and in the interest of Iran. Iran offered further support but it was turned down by the U.S. in favor of Pakistani and Saudi Arabian support, two of the largest supporters of Al Q'iada.
Iran is also popular in post Saddam Iraq. Iran's support for the Kurds and Shites has made Ahmadinejad more popular than other foreign leaders including American presidents. The Karzai received over $500 million from Iran. Iran is interested in trade and economic development in the new Iraq.
Iran's nuclear problems stem from the Ford Administration (including Cheney and Rumsfeld), where it was seen as a way for Iran to export more oil. Iran claims that nuclear weapons are not in their interest. First because they do not have the wealth to compete with the United States, and secondly like chemical weapons, nuclear weapons are against Islam. Iran is currently trying to enrich uranium to 20% for use in its research reactor. This is far below the 90% enrichment needed for nuclear weapons.
Iran sees itself as a regional power or a “soft power” basing its support not on military but on three other fronts. Cultural: many of the other states in the region have Shite minorities and Iran considers itself the cultural center of Shite in the reason. Political: Iran is an example of a stable state based on Islam and having democratic institutions and processes. Foreign Policy: Iran's foreign policy is not anti-US, but anti- US hegemony. It sees American policies as harmful, colonial, and repressive.
Iran has repeatedly opened itself to serious dialog with the US. Moderate leaders in Iran felt betrayed by the Reagan Administration. When the US asked Iran to use it's influence to secure the release of American hostages in Lebanon. The US promised arms in return (Iran was struggling in the Iran-Iraq War). There was not a program of giving arms to terrorists in exchange for hostages, but America paying Iran for its help. Iran held up its end of the bargain but the American government backed down after profits from the arms sales were discovered going to the Contras.
George H.W. Bush in his inaugural address said of Iran, “Goodwill besets goodwill.” Iran worked to free the hostages in Lebanon and gave quiet support to the U.S. lead Coalition war against Iraq. In return Iran was banned from the peace conference and was removed as a player in the New World Order. The Clinton Administration needed a way to get arms to the Bosnia Muslims without appearing to be an ally of the Bosnian and not breaking the arms embargo. The Clinton Administration turned to Iran for help. Iran agreed to help. For its help it is rewarded the U.S. blocking American oil companies from developing Iranian oil reserves, followed by economic sanctions, the first since the Iranian hostage ordeal. In 1996, after the Kobar Towers terrorist attack the US blames Iran even though the Saudi's insisted it was done by Saudis and intelligence pointed to Al Q'iada. Finally, Iran saw “hope” and “change” with the election of Obama as US president. Obama spoke of better relations and is the first president to call Iran by its proper name The Islamic Republic of Iran. Iran is still waiting waiting for change; but, instead there have been new rounds of sanctions. (Reported by the Washington Post, Iran again is open to talks with the United States 11/9/2012)
Iran has proved itself to be a legitimate and stable government. The United States believes that that unless Iran is a secular democracy, it remains a threat. This is counter to the view of Turkey, an ally, a largely Muslim country with open elections and when given given the choice, elects representatives from religious parties over secular leaders. Iran elects its leaders and representatives. To ensure representation seats are set aside for Christian, Jewish, and Zoroastrians. Iran demonstrates open elections, and peaceful transitions of power. As much as America believes Iran is a fragile government, it has survived a major war, elections, peaceful transitions of power, and the Green revolution. In the polarized American political system, both neoconservatives and liberal internationalists find themselves on the same side of the Iran issue. Neoconservatives still not forgetting or forgiving the Shah's overthrow and liberals wanting open democracy and human rights. This unusual position puts Iran in a unique and dangerous position.
The Leveretts provide a very well documented report on Iran and its history with the United States. Despite the documentation Going to Tehran does appear to be very one sided and if it were not for the credentials of its authors, one might think at times the book was written by the Iranian Information Ministry. However, the authors' purpose is to sway opinion and to take a new look at Iran who had been demonized since 1979. The argument that is presented is convincing. There will be arguments on human rights issues, but then too, leaders like Saddam Hussein, Pinochet, and Somoza were given full support of the United States. Nixon went to China. Reagan went to the Soviet Union. Why won't America go to Iran? Sooner or later Iran will tire of extending its hand only to have it slapped. It is doubtful that the United States and Iran will become allies, but assurances of peace or even diplomatic recognition would provide regional stability that both countries desire. While having an enemy for diplomatic saber rattling (or calling a Great White Satan), or rallying around the flag (or burning flags) is helpful for governments to maintain military strength or detracting populations from real issues, United States already has those enemies and they are also enemies of Iran. In all this book provides a straight forward, sensible approach to stability in the Middle East and South West Asia.
Full disclosure: This book was given to me as an advance copy, free from the publisher through Goodreads. My review based solely on my reading of the book and background/education in international relations.
June 29, 2026
What a distressing book to read in some respects. It details a series of foreign policy errors committed by the US with respect to the Republic of Iran that go back over a century. It maintains an expansive historical context that does not just begin with the US inspired overthrow of a democratically elected government in 1953, but rather extends back to a period when the Shia Islam sect first defined itself in reference to the more dominant Sunni Islam, and to this day remain no more than 15% of global Islam. It also considers the persistent invasion and attempted domination of Persia since ancient times. But in more recent times where some elements in the west want to define the Republic of Iran solely in terms of the 1979 Iranian Revolution we see a lobbing off of this historical context and a construction of a foreign policy which is founded on racial bigotry and unfounded stereotypes. This policy is also deaf and dumb to the knowledge that the west has historically desired to control the petrochemical resources of the region ever since they were first discovered.
What is distressing about this well researched and well written book is that these erroneous foreign policy assumptions have existed for so long, and persist to the present day even as this book was published during the Obama administration. As a rational being I often like to immerse myself in the illusion that a well researched and well written book can do a great deal to erode such bigotry and ignorance. Alas, this is a naive position which ignores the fact that bigotry and ignorance serve a vital function for the global elites, a topic beyond the scope of this particular book.
National sovereignty has been an important theme of Iranian politics since long before the Iranian Revolution, but most everything that has happened to Iran before and since only shores up the primacy of its importance. Iran’s nuclear power program, for example, created during the time the US imposed the sinister Shah on the country, has today come to make the Republic an important exporter of electricity to a half-dozen of its neighbors. That Iran should want to continue this program is the right of every sovereign nation on the planet. As to Iran’s ability to refine their nuclear material for use in nuclear weapons, it must first be understood that religious and political leaders have long considered the development of such weapons as haram (contrary to religious principles). Similarly they consider the use of chemical agents in warfare to be haram even as these were used against Iran when the US leveraged their buddy Saddam Heusain to use these in the Iran/Irak war (back before possessing “weapons of mass destruction” was a concern of the US). At the same time Iran has always been a signatory to the IAEA conventions and has allowed inspectors into the country to inspect its nuclear facilities. This is in contrast to the state of Israel, a known possessor of nuclear weapons, who has never allowed its facilities to be inspected by the IAEA. Nevertheless it was often Israel who has brought up claims at the UN that Iran has been on the cusp of developing a nuclear weapon since the 1990s. While US intelligence could never verify this it did not stop the rumors from proliferation much like Saddam’s supposed cache of “weapons of mass destruction”. Sometimes it takes no more than a rumor to set off decades of war because, after all, you would not want the proof to come in the form of a mushroom cloud, would you?
The fact remains that the single truism regarding policy blunders in the region are all centered around the need to dominate the global economy and be seen as the hegemon when it comes to matters of global trade. This truism persists until the US finally elects a president that does not appreciate the use of “soft power” to maintain the hegemon, and is too quick to resort to “hard power” to maintain dominance. Unfortunately for the US and the globe this reliance on hard power to assert a hegemony that was already won, now serves to upset the rickety apple cart upon which the entire global order rested. This last bit is not in the book (which again was penned during the Obama administration) but is the natural fallout, eventually, of a history of unfounded foreign policy assumptions dating back to the time the US sought to assert dominance over global trade. While it may be somewhat satisfying to see the US finally garner its comeuppance, there is no comfort that can be sought in the idea that all this could have been avoided if policy makers were more willing to flush the erroneous and bigoted assumptions that formed foreign policy decisions about Iran decades ago.
While I believe this book remains an important document with respect to ill-considered foreign policy positions of the past several decades, predating the current crisis but clearly a contributing factor, and while I also took some satisfaction that the case was so thoroughly made, I do have to ask myself what, ultimately, is the value of such scholarship if foreign policy will always be dictated by the economic elites and nominally beholden to the needs of those elites, damn the consequences for the people who have to die in the process.
What is distressing about this well researched and well written book is that these erroneous foreign policy assumptions have existed for so long, and persist to the present day even as this book was published during the Obama administration. As a rational being I often like to immerse myself in the illusion that a well researched and well written book can do a great deal to erode such bigotry and ignorance. Alas, this is a naive position which ignores the fact that bigotry and ignorance serve a vital function for the global elites, a topic beyond the scope of this particular book.
National sovereignty has been an important theme of Iranian politics since long before the Iranian Revolution, but most everything that has happened to Iran before and since only shores up the primacy of its importance. Iran’s nuclear power program, for example, created during the time the US imposed the sinister Shah on the country, has today come to make the Republic an important exporter of electricity to a half-dozen of its neighbors. That Iran should want to continue this program is the right of every sovereign nation on the planet. As to Iran’s ability to refine their nuclear material for use in nuclear weapons, it must first be understood that religious and political leaders have long considered the development of such weapons as haram (contrary to religious principles). Similarly they consider the use of chemical agents in warfare to be haram even as these were used against Iran when the US leveraged their buddy Saddam Heusain to use these in the Iran/Irak war (back before possessing “weapons of mass destruction” was a concern of the US). At the same time Iran has always been a signatory to the IAEA conventions and has allowed inspectors into the country to inspect its nuclear facilities. This is in contrast to the state of Israel, a known possessor of nuclear weapons, who has never allowed its facilities to be inspected by the IAEA. Nevertheless it was often Israel who has brought up claims at the UN that Iran has been on the cusp of developing a nuclear weapon since the 1990s. While US intelligence could never verify this it did not stop the rumors from proliferation much like Saddam’s supposed cache of “weapons of mass destruction”. Sometimes it takes no more than a rumor to set off decades of war because, after all, you would not want the proof to come in the form of a mushroom cloud, would you?
The fact remains that the single truism regarding policy blunders in the region are all centered around the need to dominate the global economy and be seen as the hegemon when it comes to matters of global trade. This truism persists until the US finally elects a president that does not appreciate the use of “soft power” to maintain the hegemon, and is too quick to resort to “hard power” to maintain dominance. Unfortunately for the US and the globe this reliance on hard power to assert a hegemony that was already won, now serves to upset the rickety apple cart upon which the entire global order rested. This last bit is not in the book (which again was penned during the Obama administration) but is the natural fallout, eventually, of a history of unfounded foreign policy assumptions dating back to the time the US sought to assert dominance over global trade. While it may be somewhat satisfying to see the US finally garner its comeuppance, there is no comfort that can be sought in the idea that all this could have been avoided if policy makers were more willing to flush the erroneous and bigoted assumptions that formed foreign policy decisions about Iran decades ago.
While I believe this book remains an important document with respect to ill-considered foreign policy positions of the past several decades, predating the current crisis but clearly a contributing factor, and while I also took some satisfaction that the case was so thoroughly made, I do have to ask myself what, ultimately, is the value of such scholarship if foreign policy will always be dictated by the economic elites and nominally beholden to the needs of those elites, damn the consequences for the people who have to die in the process.
January 18, 2013
Democracy is messy and sometimes spies and collaborators take an advantage of the loopholes available in the system. Mohsen Rezaei a former commander of IRGC has informed Ayatullah Khamenei (The Supreme Leader of Iran) to establish an Iranian Lobby as powerful as AIPAC (American Israel Public Affairs Committee) in United States in order to influence policy makers in Senate and the White house to penetrate the system and get some positive image of Islamic Republic out or change the aggressive laws passed by them. Therefore a budget was specified to pay the useful idiots and those who love Petro Dollars to get their hands on some hard cash.(i.e blood money). Leverett family paid with Petro Dollars have started a campaign of appeasement, misinformation and lies in such a way that they can portray white as black.
Iran's oil Mafia is one of the most powerful Mafias directly running under the members of the Iranian Revolutionary Guards and Quds forces,they posses a huge budget to enforce the will of Supreme leader. Therefore under the direct supervision of MOI (Ministry of Intelligence) they hire anybody no matter if Christian or Jew, to do the dirty work and get paid handsomely.A Recently published Pentagon Report indicated that MOI hired many foreign citizens to work for the mullahs. One of them who was named in this report is a British Citizen and a Professor with completely liberal features who constantly appeases Ayatullahs in Tehran but we all know that government of United States is very much aware about the Leverett family and other American Citizens whom were hired by the MOI.
These Lobbyists carry a special tone in their projects and that is "Anti War movement",Under the slogan of Anti war movement these lobbyists start the campaign of lies, misinformation and propaganda to challenge and threaten people who stand for Change and Freedom in Iran. Here is another failed try by Leveretts to publish a book and get a special bonus from Supreme Leader of Iran. What Leverett missed in their appeasement of mullahs is that the Islamic Regime had done so much damage to the world that People of the world will hate it even more by daily basis.
It has been 35 years that Islamic Republic of Iran rule the Iranian people , if nobody knows, Iranians such as myself know very well,what we are dealing with. We don't need Leverett family to Advertise for the Dear Leader or show that Iran is very nice and Iranians are still praising Mullahs. One simply can travel to Tehran, put a little beard and pretend he is a hardliner and see whether he can find a Taxi or any ride from the Airport, People of Iran are the most secular people I have ever seen in my life. Their contempt toward Mullahs and Islamic Government is shown in the way ladies dress to show the mullahs, we will not rest until we overthrow your Islamic caliphate, What media is missing is a morality Police going street by Street and arrest these young ladies for their make up or walking with their boy friends, or going to the roof tops smashing Satellite Dishes, If anything the Iranian youth despise the mullahs and their Islamic Establishment. Majority of Iranian even those who serve in Armed forces are tired of Mullahs, The rotten fruit of Theocracy made everybody contemptuous, Yet Leveretts meditated that Iranians love the mullahs. this preposterous claim is so mind boggling that even themselves can not believe it.
Islamic regime of Iran like all the Fascist regimes before it uses apologists and useful idiots to lie and manipulate the media, but I am sure Freedom loving Americans will put an end to it. The blood of dissidents who were murdered in the streets of Europe and Iran will not let the appeasers to carry on with their lies, The Phoenix of Freedom will rise again from ashes in Tehran and this time it will send the mullahs to the trash bin of History.
For more Information please read the website [...]
"If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it. The lie can be maintained only for such time as the State can shield the people from the political, economic and/or military consequences of the lie. It thus becomes vitally important for the State to use all of its powers to repress dissent, for the truth is the mortal enemy of the lie, and thus by extension, the truth is the greatest enemy of the State."
-Joseph Goebbels
Adolf Hitler's right hand man & minister of Propaganda of the Third Reich.
Iran's oil Mafia is one of the most powerful Mafias directly running under the members of the Iranian Revolutionary Guards and Quds forces,they posses a huge budget to enforce the will of Supreme leader. Therefore under the direct supervision of MOI (Ministry of Intelligence) they hire anybody no matter if Christian or Jew, to do the dirty work and get paid handsomely.A Recently published Pentagon Report indicated that MOI hired many foreign citizens to work for the mullahs. One of them who was named in this report is a British Citizen and a Professor with completely liberal features who constantly appeases Ayatullahs in Tehran but we all know that government of United States is very much aware about the Leverett family and other American Citizens whom were hired by the MOI.
These Lobbyists carry a special tone in their projects and that is "Anti War movement",Under the slogan of Anti war movement these lobbyists start the campaign of lies, misinformation and propaganda to challenge and threaten people who stand for Change and Freedom in Iran. Here is another failed try by Leveretts to publish a book and get a special bonus from Supreme Leader of Iran. What Leverett missed in their appeasement of mullahs is that the Islamic Regime had done so much damage to the world that People of the world will hate it even more by daily basis.
It has been 35 years that Islamic Republic of Iran rule the Iranian people , if nobody knows, Iranians such as myself know very well,what we are dealing with. We don't need Leverett family to Advertise for the Dear Leader or show that Iran is very nice and Iranians are still praising Mullahs. One simply can travel to Tehran, put a little beard and pretend he is a hardliner and see whether he can find a Taxi or any ride from the Airport, People of Iran are the most secular people I have ever seen in my life. Their contempt toward Mullahs and Islamic Government is shown in the way ladies dress to show the mullahs, we will not rest until we overthrow your Islamic caliphate, What media is missing is a morality Police going street by Street and arrest these young ladies for their make up or walking with their boy friends, or going to the roof tops smashing Satellite Dishes, If anything the Iranian youth despise the mullahs and their Islamic Establishment. Majority of Iranian even those who serve in Armed forces are tired of Mullahs, The rotten fruit of Theocracy made everybody contemptuous, Yet Leveretts meditated that Iranians love the mullahs. this preposterous claim is so mind boggling that even themselves can not believe it.
Islamic regime of Iran like all the Fascist regimes before it uses apologists and useful idiots to lie and manipulate the media, but I am sure Freedom loving Americans will put an end to it. The blood of dissidents who were murdered in the streets of Europe and Iran will not let the appeasers to carry on with their lies, The Phoenix of Freedom will rise again from ashes in Tehran and this time it will send the mullahs to the trash bin of History.
For more Information please read the website [...]
"If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it. The lie can be maintained only for such time as the State can shield the people from the political, economic and/or military consequences of the lie. It thus becomes vitally important for the State to use all of its powers to repress dissent, for the truth is the mortal enemy of the lie, and thus by extension, the truth is the greatest enemy of the State."
-Joseph Goebbels
Adolf Hitler's right hand man & minister of Propaganda of the Third Reich.
February 19, 2019
I would highly advise this book for any Westerner/Iranian expatriate for accurately understanding the aims, objectives and principles of the Islamic Republic of Iran. The Leveretts dispels all the propagandistic characterizations of Iran as an illegitimate state whose citizens have long awaited a toppling of their theocratic government. The myths about the regress of the Iran post-revolution are also debunked by the Leveretts. This is done so by comparing several national index values (literacy, life expectancy, access to health-care, access to education and etc.) pre- and post- the Islamic revolution. The Leverett's also contrast the dishonesty of the coverage and political analysis provided by Western and Iranian expatriates journalists of Iran by comparing it with the news coverage within Iran and the facts on the ground.
Most importantly, the Leveretts stripped America of the facade it hides behind by exposing the numerous instances in which America:
1) Made deals with Iran while lying to the American public of Iran's dishonesty and misplaced intentions.
2) Turned on Iran and refused to fulfill their end of the deal when Iran fulfilled theirs, giving Iran all the more reason to remain skeptical and hesitant from engaging in any more deals with America today.
3) Turned the international community against Iran on the basis of unjustified claims and accusations.
4) Funded and partook in operations seeking to overthrow the Iranian government.
All in all, this is a great book and I would highly advise it for everyone to read.
Most importantly, the Leveretts stripped America of the facade it hides behind by exposing the numerous instances in which America:
1) Made deals with Iran while lying to the American public of Iran's dishonesty and misplaced intentions.
2) Turned on Iran and refused to fulfill their end of the deal when Iran fulfilled theirs, giving Iran all the more reason to remain skeptical and hesitant from engaging in any more deals with America today.
3) Turned the international community against Iran on the basis of unjustified claims and accusations.
4) Funded and partook in operations seeking to overthrow the Iranian government.
All in all, this is a great book and I would highly advise it for everyone to read.
August 10, 2026
The funny thing about reading this book is that it came out almost 15 years ago, yet it basically explains everything that is happening in the current iteration (2025-26) of the conflict between the United States and Iran. It's an utter joke for our government to feign ignorance about any of the mistakes and negative consequences of their actions in this conflict.
This was largely written from the perspective that much of the conflict with Iran has its origins in Western intervention in Iranian sovereignty. They dispel many of the myths that have been spoon-fed to Americans by generations of neocons and other adversarial parties. I'm not going to blindly accept all of their assertions, but their arguments are very logical; especially given the current state of affairs.
This was largely written from the perspective that much of the conflict with Iran has its origins in Western intervention in Iranian sovereignty. They dispel many of the myths that have been spoon-fed to Americans by generations of neocons and other adversarial parties. I'm not going to blindly accept all of their assertions, but their arguments are very logical; especially given the current state of affairs.
May 14, 2026
Great insights on the historic context behind the thinking and actions of Iran, and how the USA's policies towards it came to be. Perhaps a little bit dry and lacking an interesting narrative focus in some parts.
Great book overall, what it warned against in 2013 reads like the news of 2026.
Great book overall, what it warned against in 2013 reads like the news of 2026.
October 15, 2026
Anyone who is serious about understanding US-Iran relations and US policy toward Iran should read this.
February 6, 2017
so, this is definitely not the book to read if you are trying to learn about Iran but have little primer on your knowledge of the middle east. thus, this book took me quite a long time to finish as my knowledge on the middle east is limited. having stated this, I did learn quite a bit from this book but won't be able to tool this new knowledge as much as I could if I had read foundational texts first.
Going to Tehran is the essential finger-pointing book...the Leveretts know exactly who opposes them, down to specific names. cleary, the Leveretts knew their views are unpopular - both even comment on how the NYT occasionally gets the Iran story wrong. the book's thesis is essentially that the IRI is not going away any time soon and the US should rework our relationship with the IRI, much like we did with China during the early 1970s. after stating this, the Leveretts go to town pointing out how -blank- has done these actions in the past, has this background and as a result is not improving the US-IRI relationship. definitely a battle cry for change and a scorching critique of US diplomacy. perhaps the only flaw I found in this book is the lack of discussion concerning human rights violations in the IRI but even if the Leveretts did discuss IRI human rights violations, it would not discredit their argument. once again, note the blatant human rights violations that occur in Egypt, Saudi Arabia, China, and even Vietnam while the US still maintains diplomatic relations with each state.
the most compelling point in Going to Tehran, is why the US is so insistent on regime change. the Leveretts write that the US isn't really interested in the happy human rights of the country but rather, the US is interested in expanding our area of influence. hence Vietnam, hence Iraq, hence why a vast portion of our foreign military sales go to Saudi Arabia despite massive human rights violations...rather than attempting to meet "mutual accommodation" as Nixon and Kissinger did with China, US diplomacy, has essentially been "my way or the high way". such globalization began in the H.W. Bush Administration, gained strength in the Clinton Administration and dominated the G.W. Bush and Obama administration. Obama gets some points for trying a little bit to reopen the US-IRI relationship but unfortunately his efforts ran out of steam. but, the Leveretts emphasize that the IRI is a legitimate force to be reckoned with (unlike North Korea) and the US would be wise to change diplomatic tactics.
looking forward (as this book came out in 2012), whatever happens between the IRI and the US under the Trump Administration will certainly be interesting, if not unfortunate. though no one in Washington seems to know what the Trump Administration makes of anything foreign policy wise, it does seem apparent that the hegemonic attitude of US diplomacy is not going to change which does not bode well for US-IRI relations. if the Trump Administration wants to back out of the Iranian nuclear deal, continue to dismiss the IRI as a legitimate power or even declare war on the IRI, the US is in for a bumpy ride. US allies, even Saudi Arabia, do no want a US-Iran war as a war will deeply dent the oil market that flows through the Strait of Hormuz. should the US go to war with Iran, air defense would likely be targeted first which would disable oil exports through the Strait of Hormuz and there goes 20% of oil exports consumed by Japan and a chunk of Europe. the world runs on oil as well - almost 94 million barrels are consumed per day in the world. not to mention, many middle eastern economies would be crippled as many middle eastern economies are not diversified and heavily dependent on oil exports. furthermore, the US would be on it's own in this ordeal as those involved in the Iranian nuclear deal (United Nations Security Council) have already stated they would not help the US if we choose to dismiss the Iranian nuclear deal. so now not only is the US on thorny terms with the IRI but we are also alone in our position. this scenario doesn't even consider the implications between the US and the IRI concerning immigration OR what may happen now that aggressive conspiracy-soaked conservative ideology (different from your typical brand of conservativism, by the way) has a strong say in the President's security council.
so what is the next step for US-IRI relations? no one seems to know and sadly, it seems that the chance for change for the better is slim.
Going to Tehran is the essential finger-pointing book...the Leveretts know exactly who opposes them, down to specific names. cleary, the Leveretts knew their views are unpopular - both even comment on how the NYT occasionally gets the Iran story wrong. the book's thesis is essentially that the IRI is not going away any time soon and the US should rework our relationship with the IRI, much like we did with China during the early 1970s. after stating this, the Leveretts go to town pointing out how -blank- has done these actions in the past, has this background and as a result is not improving the US-IRI relationship. definitely a battle cry for change and a scorching critique of US diplomacy. perhaps the only flaw I found in this book is the lack of discussion concerning human rights violations in the IRI but even if the Leveretts did discuss IRI human rights violations, it would not discredit their argument. once again, note the blatant human rights violations that occur in Egypt, Saudi Arabia, China, and even Vietnam while the US still maintains diplomatic relations with each state.
the most compelling point in Going to Tehran, is why the US is so insistent on regime change. the Leveretts write that the US isn't really interested in the happy human rights of the country but rather, the US is interested in expanding our area of influence. hence Vietnam, hence Iraq, hence why a vast portion of our foreign military sales go to Saudi Arabia despite massive human rights violations...rather than attempting to meet "mutual accommodation" as Nixon and Kissinger did with China, US diplomacy, has essentially been "my way or the high way". such globalization began in the H.W. Bush Administration, gained strength in the Clinton Administration and dominated the G.W. Bush and Obama administration. Obama gets some points for trying a little bit to reopen the US-IRI relationship but unfortunately his efforts ran out of steam. but, the Leveretts emphasize that the IRI is a legitimate force to be reckoned with (unlike North Korea) and the US would be wise to change diplomatic tactics.
looking forward (as this book came out in 2012), whatever happens between the IRI and the US under the Trump Administration will certainly be interesting, if not unfortunate. though no one in Washington seems to know what the Trump Administration makes of anything foreign policy wise, it does seem apparent that the hegemonic attitude of US diplomacy is not going to change which does not bode well for US-IRI relations. if the Trump Administration wants to back out of the Iranian nuclear deal, continue to dismiss the IRI as a legitimate power or even declare war on the IRI, the US is in for a bumpy ride. US allies, even Saudi Arabia, do no want a US-Iran war as a war will deeply dent the oil market that flows through the Strait of Hormuz. should the US go to war with Iran, air defense would likely be targeted first which would disable oil exports through the Strait of Hormuz and there goes 20% of oil exports consumed by Japan and a chunk of Europe. the world runs on oil as well - almost 94 million barrels are consumed per day in the world. not to mention, many middle eastern economies would be crippled as many middle eastern economies are not diversified and heavily dependent on oil exports. furthermore, the US would be on it's own in this ordeal as those involved in the Iranian nuclear deal (United Nations Security Council) have already stated they would not help the US if we choose to dismiss the Iranian nuclear deal. so now not only is the US on thorny terms with the IRI but we are also alone in our position. this scenario doesn't even consider the implications between the US and the IRI concerning immigration OR what may happen now that aggressive conspiracy-soaked conservative ideology (different from your typical brand of conservativism, by the way) has a strong say in the President's security council.
so what is the next step for US-IRI relations? no one seems to know and sadly, it seems that the chance for change for the better is slim.
May 3, 2026
Outstanding book to understand our antiquated beliefs about Iran and the Middle East in general. Should be mandatory reading in any college Poli Sci class.
January 19, 2014
The Road to Tehran was a real eye-opening book that provides a lot of insight on the United States' failed policy in respect to Iran. The authors have ruffled quite a few feathers because the book essentially says that the last 40+ years of foreign policy with Iran has been misguided and counter-productive. The authors contend that the US has sought hegemony in the Middle East and is ignoring the powerful role that Iran could play in stabilizing the region. Iran has 15 neighboring countries and is important economically, politically, and religiously.
Even since the ouster of the Iranian shah in 1979, the US has essentially ceased nearly all forms of diplomacy with the Islamic Republic. We seem to gloss over the fact that the CIA caused a coup in 1954 that overthrew Iran's democratically elected president and focus more on the storming of the US embassy and the taking of Americans as hostages.
The book talks about how the Iranians have extended themselves on various occasions in order to open diplomatic channels, but the US has repeatedly ceased to reciprocate. The media does not shed much light on these occasions, but it is not hard to determine their veracity. For example, most Americans do not know that the Iranians helped to secure the release of the last US hostages in Lebanon in the early 1980s. The Iranians also helped during the war in Iraq. They also helped the US to overthrow the Taliban in Afghanistan. You will not hear about these things in the mainstream news because the information runs counter to the storyline that Iran is an "illegitimate, irrational, and on-the-verge-of-collapse power" with which we need to apply more pressure, especially with economic sanctions.
The book also centers on the Iranian nuclear program, which is, of course, central to our political impasse with Iran. First of all, it should be noted that the US gave Iran its nuclear program. Back in 1956, we gave the shah of Iran the Tehran Research Reactor (TRR). Yes, that's correct, we gave the Iranians the building blocks to start their nuclear program. However, after the shah was deposed, the US decided that it no longer wanted Iran to have such technology. Next, it should be noted that Iran has signed several nuclear non-proliferation treaties like other nuclear players and has agreed to IAEA inspections. The mere possession of a nuclear program is not, in itself, taboo. The science is a lot more complex, but the crux of the matter lies with whether or not a country enriches uranium to the 90+% required to make a nuclear weapon. Enriching uranium to a mere 20% is useful in creating isotopes helpful for cancer treatments, creating energy, etc.
At any rate, in order to truly see what the author's arguments are, you will clearly need to read the book for yourself. I would recommend this book to anyone who wants to know the history (and not just sound bytes) about the US and its relationship with Iran. The closing argument of the book and the title of the book has to do with the US and its opening of relations with Communist China. The parallels between the two are striking: both went through revolutions, the resulting government was seen as illegitimate, both have nuclear programs, both have governments in exile that we support, etc. The authors contend that the US president should, like Nixon in 1972, go to Iran and open relations. Make it a top-down approach and not rely on committees and multiple nations and a piece-meal approach that is easily derailed by a single issue. Change the relationship in a comprehensive manner and not little by little.
I really enjoyed the book and learned a tremendous amount from it!
Here is a video of the authors talking about the book:
http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=8Mlk7sXRsPc
Even since the ouster of the Iranian shah in 1979, the US has essentially ceased nearly all forms of diplomacy with the Islamic Republic. We seem to gloss over the fact that the CIA caused a coup in 1954 that overthrew Iran's democratically elected president and focus more on the storming of the US embassy and the taking of Americans as hostages.
The book talks about how the Iranians have extended themselves on various occasions in order to open diplomatic channels, but the US has repeatedly ceased to reciprocate. The media does not shed much light on these occasions, but it is not hard to determine their veracity. For example, most Americans do not know that the Iranians helped to secure the release of the last US hostages in Lebanon in the early 1980s. The Iranians also helped during the war in Iraq. They also helped the US to overthrow the Taliban in Afghanistan. You will not hear about these things in the mainstream news because the information runs counter to the storyline that Iran is an "illegitimate, irrational, and on-the-verge-of-collapse power" with which we need to apply more pressure, especially with economic sanctions.
The book also centers on the Iranian nuclear program, which is, of course, central to our political impasse with Iran. First of all, it should be noted that the US gave Iran its nuclear program. Back in 1956, we gave the shah of Iran the Tehran Research Reactor (TRR). Yes, that's correct, we gave the Iranians the building blocks to start their nuclear program. However, after the shah was deposed, the US decided that it no longer wanted Iran to have such technology. Next, it should be noted that Iran has signed several nuclear non-proliferation treaties like other nuclear players and has agreed to IAEA inspections. The mere possession of a nuclear program is not, in itself, taboo. The science is a lot more complex, but the crux of the matter lies with whether or not a country enriches uranium to the 90+% required to make a nuclear weapon. Enriching uranium to a mere 20% is useful in creating isotopes helpful for cancer treatments, creating energy, etc.
At any rate, in order to truly see what the author's arguments are, you will clearly need to read the book for yourself. I would recommend this book to anyone who wants to know the history (and not just sound bytes) about the US and its relationship with Iran. The closing argument of the book and the title of the book has to do with the US and its opening of relations with Communist China. The parallels between the two are striking: both went through revolutions, the resulting government was seen as illegitimate, both have nuclear programs, both have governments in exile that we support, etc. The authors contend that the US president should, like Nixon in 1972, go to Iran and open relations. Make it a top-down approach and not rely on committees and multiple nations and a piece-meal approach that is easily derailed by a single issue. Change the relationship in a comprehensive manner and not little by little.
I really enjoyed the book and learned a tremendous amount from it!
Here is a video of the authors talking about the book:
http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=8Mlk7sXRsPc
Read
April 20, 2022The writers are Americans who have wide deep experiences with the Middle East and are also well versed in research and academics. Reading this book from a non-Muslim Asian view - I am impressed (almost overwhelmed) by the depth of references and details - and resonate with the view, "Instead of dealing soberly and effectively with the region's complex political security dynamics, the United States has tried to remake the Middle East in accordance with American preferences and with scant regard for Middle East realities."
Relationships are always difficult when we view the other person as unstable, irrational and ideological. This book attracts flak as the author gives evidence that the Islamic revolution and the Iranian government is something that is stable and sensible; not a failed or failing state , and certainly not a "insular, impulsive, insecure, clumsy regime." - a view that I gather is not popular in the USA decision making circles.
Many Muslims ..." do not want to live in a flat world where cultures are driven toward a convergent sameness ... are not persuaded that jettisoning their culture for a secularised foreign alternative is in their interest"
The author has a view point that the Iranian state is a viable and legitimate state, gives in-depth historical and present day facts and figures, and thus argues strongly for this view. Important reading especially if one disagrees with his view.
Relationships are always difficult when we view the other person as unstable, irrational and ideological. This book attracts flak as the author gives evidence that the Islamic revolution and the Iranian government is something that is stable and sensible; not a failed or failing state , and certainly not a "insular, impulsive, insecure, clumsy regime." - a view that I gather is not popular in the USA decision making circles.
Many Muslims ..." do not want to live in a flat world where cultures are driven toward a convergent sameness ... are not persuaded that jettisoning their culture for a secularised foreign alternative is in their interest"
The author has a view point that the Iranian state is a viable and legitimate state, gives in-depth historical and present day facts and figures, and thus argues strongly for this view. Important reading especially if one disagrees with his view.
November 5, 2013
It was fascinating to be reading this at the exact time that relationships between the USA and Iran seem to be showing the smallest glimmer of hope. Some might find it strange to call this a page turner, but it was for me. Although it stayed unread literally for months (I was overly ambitious at the public library and it is on its last renewal). While watching the news with my dad last night, I was effectively able to counter some of the so-called arguments with documentation. Although I think nuclear energy is too dangerous for ANY nation to pursue, the media has clearly been spinning one-sided falsehoods towards us for years. This is just one such example. Do I believe that Iran has problems? Of course. Do I think that they are actually doing a decent job? It seems more and more so. I would never want to live there, and I do think that there are still some human rights issues going on, but the same can be said about any country including Canada, the USA, Britain, France etc. Overall...one of the most enlightening books I have read in a long time.
January 20, 2014
Having just read the book and gone through the footnoted references, how can one deny that the US never misses an opportunity to throw reconciliation aside? Our own national collective memory regarding Iran only goes back to 1979 - ignoring US actions in the 1953 coup of Iran's democratically elected leader. And even if we do acknowledge the coup we summarily dismiss it as a non-event, expecting Iranians to get over it. Nothing happens in a vacuum, there is always cause and effect and the '79 Revolution can be traced back to the '53 coup.
I hate to say this, but the US has always misread the Middle East and Persia, resorting to caricatures purported by Orientalists, and later, neoconservatives. In the end, you have to look at the US record of success in the Muslim world and ask how well our strategies actually work. How many years does a power have to be in government and operating before the US legitimizes Iran's right to govern itself. I am not sure the reviewer actually read the book thoroughly.
I hate to say this, but the US has always misread the Middle East and Persia, resorting to caricatures purported by Orientalists, and later, neoconservatives. In the end, you have to look at the US record of success in the Muslim world and ask how well our strategies actually work. How many years does a power have to be in government and operating before the US legitimizes Iran's right to govern itself. I am not sure the reviewer actually read the book thoroughly.
August 9, 2026
Going to Tehran by Flynt Leverett and Hillary Mann Leverett is, above all, a superb work of academic research: meticulously documented, extensively referenced, and grounded in a remarkable body of historical, political, and strategic evidence. The authors draw on their experience inside the American national-security establishment as well as on an extraordinary range of sources to challenge many of the assumptions that have dominated Western discourse about Iran. This is one of the book’s greatest strengths: rather than treating the Islamic Republic as an inexplicable or irrational anomaly, the Leveretts attempt to understand it as a state with its own history, institutions, strategic calculations, constituencies, and national interests. Many readers have particularly praised the sheer density of the documentation and the painstaking footnotes, while even more critical reviewers acknowledge that the book offers a powerful corrective to conventional accounts.
What makes the book especially valuable is its insistence that Iran must be judged through evidence rather than through inherited clichés. The Leveretts present a detailed case that the Islamic Republic has demonstrated considerable political resilience, institutional continuity, technological and scientific development, social progress in areas such as literacy and healthcare, and an enduring capacity to project influence far beyond its borders. In doing so, they challenge the repeatedly recycled assumption that the Iranian state is perpetually on the verge of collapse or survives only through repression. The argument is not that Iran is without contradictions or serious shortcomings, but that reducing a country of Iran’s history and complexity to a caricature is intellectually indefensible.
For me, the enduring achievement of Going to Tehran is therefore not simply its foreign-policy prescription, but its broader intellectual refusal to accept the demonization of Iran as an analytical method. The book restores a sense of historical proportion to the discussion: Iran is a civilization and a nation with an extraordinary heritage, profound intellectual and cultural achievements, and a modern political experience that cannot honestly be understood through the simplistic narratives often promoted by partisan interests, advocacy networks, or media ecosystems invested in portraying the country solely as a threat. The Leveretts do not ask the reader to agree with every aspect of the Islamic Republic; they ask something more fundamental—to take Iran seriously.
What makes the book especially valuable is its insistence that Iran must be judged through evidence rather than through inherited clichés. The Leveretts present a detailed case that the Islamic Republic has demonstrated considerable political resilience, institutional continuity, technological and scientific development, social progress in areas such as literacy and healthcare, and an enduring capacity to project influence far beyond its borders. In doing so, they challenge the repeatedly recycled assumption that the Iranian state is perpetually on the verge of collapse or survives only through repression. The argument is not that Iran is without contradictions or serious shortcomings, but that reducing a country of Iran’s history and complexity to a caricature is intellectually indefensible.
For me, the enduring achievement of Going to Tehran is therefore not simply its foreign-policy prescription, but its broader intellectual refusal to accept the demonization of Iran as an analytical method. The book restores a sense of historical proportion to the discussion: Iran is a civilization and a nation with an extraordinary heritage, profound intellectual and cultural achievements, and a modern political experience that cannot honestly be understood through the simplistic narratives often promoted by partisan interests, advocacy networks, or media ecosystems invested in portraying the country solely as a threat. The Leveretts do not ask the reader to agree with every aspect of the Islamic Republic; they ask something more fundamental—to take Iran seriously.
May 25, 2026
Going to Tehran is required reading for anyone trying to understand the consistent inconsistencies of U.S. policy toward Iran. What makes the book so compelling is that the authors refuse to reduce the story to partisan talking points. Republicans and Democrats alike come off looking shortsighted, arrogant, and captive to an American foreign policy establishment that never seriously gave diplomacy with Iran a chance.
The Clintons alienated Iran just as clumsily as the Bush administration, and the Obama years, despite the rhetoric of engagement, still reflected the same deep mistrust and inability to break from decades of entrenched hostility. The authors make a convincing case that the United States repeatedly misread Iran’s motives, ignored opportunities for rapprochement, and helped create a cycle of escalation that ultimately cost Iranian lives far more than American ones.
Most haunting is the book’s warning about the catastrophic consequences of war with Iran. Reading it now feels almost prophetic. The authors pleaded for realism, restraint, and genuine diplomacy at a time when Washington still had options. Instead, the political class treated engagement as weakness and confrontation as inevitability.
I only wish more people had listened when this book was first published.
The Clintons alienated Iran just as clumsily as the Bush administration, and the Obama years, despite the rhetoric of engagement, still reflected the same deep mistrust and inability to break from decades of entrenched hostility. The authors make a convincing case that the United States repeatedly misread Iran’s motives, ignored opportunities for rapprochement, and helped create a cycle of escalation that ultimately cost Iranian lives far more than American ones.
Most haunting is the book’s warning about the catastrophic consequences of war with Iran. Reading it now feels almost prophetic. The authors pleaded for realism, restraint, and genuine diplomacy at a time when Washington still had options. Instead, the political class treated engagement as weakness and confrontation as inevitability.
I only wish more people had listened when this book was first published.
May 8, 2026
The authors' prescience shines through as the future of US-Iran relations predicted over a decade ago is coming to pass in March 2026. Guided by its own hubris and Israel's self-interests, the US-Israel combine launched an illegal war on Iran and are starting to realize that they have bitten off more than they can chew. The outstanding hypocrisy of the Western governments has been exposed by Iran. This book informs the reader that Iran, while not itself a beacon of democracy or human rights, has nevertheless stayed true to its stated objectives in asserting its right to govern according to their Islamic tenets while trying to improve relations with the West, especially the US.
Together with King of Kings: The Iranian Revolution: A Story of Hubris, Delusion and Catastrophic Miscalculation by Scott Anderson, this book evidences the misplaced arrogance and ignorance of each successive White House administration. Starting March 2026, we are perhaps now witnessing the start of the rapid decline of the American Empire, initiated by Iran.
Together with King of Kings: The Iranian Revolution: A Story of Hubris, Delusion and Catastrophic Miscalculation by Scott Anderson, this book evidences the misplaced arrogance and ignorance of each successive White House administration. Starting March 2026, we are perhaps now witnessing the start of the rapid decline of the American Empire, initiated by Iran.
January 19, 2019
Though a bit dated in terms of how fast (and furious) U.S. foreign policy and politics move since 2016 (as we are now in the Trump era), it is nonetheless a very important book to read right now. The antagonistic relationship of the United States with the Islamic Republic of Iran reminds me of the antagonistic relationship of Washington with the socialist government of Fidel Castro of Cuba since 1959. Both nation-states have been subjected to harassment (via economic sanctions and covert military actions) by the hegemonic power, the United States. As former insiders in Washington, and now academics, the Leveretts write with authority and deep insight about the nature of the Islamic Republic and of the nature of U.S. hegemony in relation to it. They cogently argue that understanding deeply and accepting the legitimate sovereignty and independence of the Islamic Republic of Iran is crucial and maybe the only way to achieve peace and true stability in the Middle East region.
July 3, 2017
This was a nice surprise. I'm hesitant to give this books 4 stars though. It was pretty dry and read like a textbook.... also the organization was a bit wonky. But, it was like stepping into a whole new genre and all I can think about now is consuming more and more about Iran.
I feel like this book is good starting point and that's it. It could be much more thorough, but I'm glad I ran across this book. I want to read more about the Iran-Iraq war, more about nuclear power, and more about figures like Ahmadinejad. The stories in this book portray an Iran completely at odds with popular media and the image here in the U.S. I need to read more about this.
I feel like this book is good starting point and that's it. It could be much more thorough, but I'm glad I ran across this book. I want to read more about the Iran-Iraq war, more about nuclear power, and more about figures like Ahmadinejad. The stories in this book portray an Iran completely at odds with popular media and the image here in the U.S. I need to read more about this.
July 21, 2026
Great book for those invested in the current global affairs. This book gives a detailed insight into the history of Iran and allows the reader to understand their stance against the US from Iran's point of view. I enjoyed the first part of the book the most as it explained the buildup to the Islamic revolution and the struggles of Iran against the invasion of Saddam Hussein. There was also insight to Iran's leadership and where they come from and how their government operates. As a westerner you never hear their side of the story and this book opens your eyes to a new perspective regarding the tensions of the entire region.
June 20, 2026
Een heel goed boek. Sommige stukken waren een beetje droog, maar overal is het goed te lezen. Ik heb 2 hoofdstukken geskipt die over verkiezingen van 15-20 jaar geleden gingen, deze waren niet heel relevant meer.
Het is interessant om te zien hoe accuraat veel van de voorspellingen en analyses van de schrijver achteraf blijken te zijn. Zo stelde ze bijvoorbeeld dat Iran een sterke regionale macht is dankzij zijn arsenaal aan drones en ballistische raketten. Inmiddels is dat in de praktijk duidelijk gebleken.
Bedankt, professor Marandi, voor de leestip!
Het is interessant om te zien hoe accuraat veel van de voorspellingen en analyses van de schrijver achteraf blijken te zijn. Zo stelde ze bijvoorbeeld dat Iran een sterke regionale macht is dankzij zijn arsenaal aan drones en ballistische raketten. Inmiddels is dat in de praktijk duidelijk gebleken.
Bedankt, professor Marandi, voor de leestip!
July 8, 2026
Well researched with an obviously valid thesis. It’s demoralizing how much this book predicted. So many of the neocon talking points that were dismantled in this book are still parroted verbatim today. It’s like America is on the slowest train wreck of all time with our Middle Eastern foreign policy. This book arms you with a more well rounded perspective, even if you don’t fully agree with all their conclusions.
I found it to be very engaging throughout. I was worried it might drag or get boring but i found myself interested and often wanting to pick it up in my spare time. You may want to know a bit about middle eastern politics before you start.
I found it to be very engaging throughout. I was worried it might drag or get boring but i found myself interested and often wanting to pick it up in my spare time. You may want to know a bit about middle eastern politics before you start.
November 17, 2018
A vital book for understanding the perspective of the Iranian establishment, with many useful correctives to Western caricatures, though it misses an opportunity to provide a truly balanced perspective (the state's crimes may be wildly overblown, but they still exist).
August 31, 2026
For anyone who cares about what is going on right now with the United States and Iranian relationship, and interested in getting a solid background of the policy failures and poor decision making of successive administrations, this book is well worth a read.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 42 reviews