What do you think?
Rate this book
Iran's Rise and Rivalry with the US in the Middle East
In recent decades, the Islamic Republic of Iran has poured roughly $50bn into foreign interventions. Despite facing sanctions on par with North Korea and being an international pariah, Iran has created its own sphere of influence. The future of Iraq, Lebanon, Syria and Yemen is intertwined with the fate of the Islamic Republic. What spurred Iran’s rise – and what are its motivations now? Mohsen Milani makes the case that Iran is guided by two power and deterrence. The Iran–Iraq war provided Iran the impetus to build its own military-industrial complex, while its funding, training and arming of Hezbollah – the only army not to lose against Israel – acts as a warning for anyone with designs on Iran’s territory. But power has a price. As domestic unrest rises, Iran simply cannot afford its attempts at regional dominance any longer.
368 pages, Kindle Edition
Published January 9, 2025
21 people are currently reading
166 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 3 of 3 reviews
July 30, 2025
Summary
This book is an excellent read for anyone interested in understanding Iran's role in the Middle East and its recent geopolitical history. Milani skillfully illustrates Iran’s dual, often conflicting goals: exporting its Islamic Revolution and safeguarding national security. These objectives, while central to the regime’s identity, are frequently at odds with one another—and Milani captures that tension effectively.
The book also challenges the simplistic portrayal of Iran as merely a reactive state resisting American imperialism. Milani presents a much more nuanced and strategic actor. Iran has successfully established an “Axis of Resistance”—a loose alliance resembling NATO in structure, aimed at confronting the United States and Israel on multiple fronts. However, as Milani argues, this model depends on unified coordination across diverse proxies, which has proven difficult in practice. The lack of ideological cohesion among Iran’s partners has prevented them from operating as a truly synchronized threat.
Iran’s current geopolitical posture, in my view, closely mirrors Cold War-era thinking—specifically, the “with us or against us” binary seen in both U.S. and Soviet strategies. This mindset, while useful in building influence, has significant limitations. Despite the considerable political, economic, and security costs, Iran continues to arm proxies and intervene in regional affairs with the primary aim of destabilizing adversaries. Until Iran’s leadership moves beyond this Cold War-style worldview, the country’s potential—and that of its people and rich culture—will remain stunted.
Reading Notes:
The Palestinian Cause
The Israel-Palestine conflict entered mainstream American consciousness with renewed force after the events of October 7th. Practically overnight, what was once a niche concern of Middle East scholars and diaspora communities became a subject of intense public debate. For the casual observer, the answer often appears simple: a two-state solution. But for those more deeply involved in Middle Eastern affairs, the path forward is far more complicated.
While the U.S. national security establishment often warns against falling for Iranian propaganda, this should not lead to dismissing the legitimacy of the Palestinian issue. I’ve observed too many discussions where valid concerns are written off simply because Iran (or other actors) have exploited them for their own purposes. Propaganda and legitimacy are not mutually exclusive. The real challenge is determining how to engage in constructive dialogue that acknowledges both the underlying moral arguments and the manipulative narratives crafted by state and non-state actors. The Palestinian question should not be a taboo topic within the security community. Discussing it candidly should not carry the risk of being branded an Islamist sympathizer or Iranian apologist.
Iran’s Imperialism
Iran seems to be repeating a familiar pattern seen in U.S. foreign policy: overextension and ideological overreach in the name of grand strategy. Tehran’s constant interference in neighboring states—often through military and paramilitary proxies—has produced short-term gains but mounting long-term consequences.
Ironically, Iran frequently positions itself as a victim of Western imperialism, yet pursues an overtly neo-imperialist policy in its own region. This contradiction is rarely emphasized in Western media coverage. Framing Iran’s actions through this lens—one of regional imperialism rather than resistance—could shift how Western audiences perceive its foreign policy behavior.
Iran’s Nuclear Question
Milani argues that the U.S. has hesitated to strike Iranian nuclear facilities due to Tehran’s drone and missile capabilities and the deterrent effect of its Axis of Resistance. While this is partially true, I don’t fully agree. Recent U.S. operations suggest that military capability is not the limiting factor—strategic restraint is.
For example, the weakening of the Axis of Resistance has enabled targeted U.S. responses, showing that military options are available but deliberately underused in favor of regional stability. This restraint shifted somewhat under President Trump, but overall, the U.S. has opted for measured responses, hoping to avoid full-scale escalation.
However, this approach often overlooks a key variable: Iran is not merely a rational state actor focused on material interests. Its leadership is deeply influenced by religious fundamentalism—willing to absorb significant risks in pursuit of ideological and theological goals. This reality is frequently underappreciated by Western policymakers, who struggle to step outside their own secular worldview and fully grasp the role that religious conviction plays in shaping the actions of Islamist and jihadi actors.
This book is an excellent read for anyone interested in understanding Iran's role in the Middle East and its recent geopolitical history. Milani skillfully illustrates Iran’s dual, often conflicting goals: exporting its Islamic Revolution and safeguarding national security. These objectives, while central to the regime’s identity, are frequently at odds with one another—and Milani captures that tension effectively.
The book also challenges the simplistic portrayal of Iran as merely a reactive state resisting American imperialism. Milani presents a much more nuanced and strategic actor. Iran has successfully established an “Axis of Resistance”—a loose alliance resembling NATO in structure, aimed at confronting the United States and Israel on multiple fronts. However, as Milani argues, this model depends on unified coordination across diverse proxies, which has proven difficult in practice. The lack of ideological cohesion among Iran’s partners has prevented them from operating as a truly synchronized threat.
Iran’s current geopolitical posture, in my view, closely mirrors Cold War-era thinking—specifically, the “with us or against us” binary seen in both U.S. and Soviet strategies. This mindset, while useful in building influence, has significant limitations. Despite the considerable political, economic, and security costs, Iran continues to arm proxies and intervene in regional affairs with the primary aim of destabilizing adversaries. Until Iran’s leadership moves beyond this Cold War-style worldview, the country’s potential—and that of its people and rich culture—will remain stunted.
Reading Notes:
The Palestinian Cause
The Israel-Palestine conflict entered mainstream American consciousness with renewed force after the events of October 7th. Practically overnight, what was once a niche concern of Middle East scholars and diaspora communities became a subject of intense public debate. For the casual observer, the answer often appears simple: a two-state solution. But for those more deeply involved in Middle Eastern affairs, the path forward is far more complicated.
While the U.S. national security establishment often warns against falling for Iranian propaganda, this should not lead to dismissing the legitimacy of the Palestinian issue. I’ve observed too many discussions where valid concerns are written off simply because Iran (or other actors) have exploited them for their own purposes. Propaganda and legitimacy are not mutually exclusive. The real challenge is determining how to engage in constructive dialogue that acknowledges both the underlying moral arguments and the manipulative narratives crafted by state and non-state actors. The Palestinian question should not be a taboo topic within the security community. Discussing it candidly should not carry the risk of being branded an Islamist sympathizer or Iranian apologist.
Iran’s Imperialism
Iran seems to be repeating a familiar pattern seen in U.S. foreign policy: overextension and ideological overreach in the name of grand strategy. Tehran’s constant interference in neighboring states—often through military and paramilitary proxies—has produced short-term gains but mounting long-term consequences.
Ironically, Iran frequently positions itself as a victim of Western imperialism, yet pursues an overtly neo-imperialist policy in its own region. This contradiction is rarely emphasized in Western media coverage. Framing Iran’s actions through this lens—one of regional imperialism rather than resistance—could shift how Western audiences perceive its foreign policy behavior.
Iran’s Nuclear Question
Milani argues that the U.S. has hesitated to strike Iranian nuclear facilities due to Tehran’s drone and missile capabilities and the deterrent effect of its Axis of Resistance. While this is partially true, I don’t fully agree. Recent U.S. operations suggest that military capability is not the limiting factor—strategic restraint is.
For example, the weakening of the Axis of Resistance has enabled targeted U.S. responses, showing that military options are available but deliberately underused in favor of regional stability. This restraint shifted somewhat under President Trump, but overall, the U.S. has opted for measured responses, hoping to avoid full-scale escalation.
However, this approach often overlooks a key variable: Iran is not merely a rational state actor focused on material interests. Its leadership is deeply influenced by religious fundamentalism—willing to absorb significant risks in pursuit of ideological and theological goals. This reality is frequently underappreciated by Western policymakers, who struggle to step outside their own secular worldview and fully grasp the role that religious conviction plays in shaping the actions of Islamist and jihadi actors.
April 29, 2025
This is a good book, although it was more a serious of accounts of various Middle Eastern conflicts. I was expecting and hoping for more reflections or insights into why things actually went the way they did. Iran's decision to back Palestinian groups (which is not in ts national interest, and some Shia groups like the Lebanese Amal were pro-Israel early on) could have been further elaborated.
June 7, 2025
This book looks at Iran's involvement in the political and military situation in surrounding countries. It is well-written and somewhat timely, but does not include the latest developments, despite being published this year. The author does a good job of considering the various facets of Iran's political ideology.
Displaying 1 - 3 of 3 reviews