What do you think?
Rate this book
استراتيجية ايران الكبرى: تاريخ سياسي
لا نظريات جاهرة في هذا الكتاب. العرض، التحليل، والتفكيك على أساس منهجي: هذا كل ما يقدّمه. الأيديولوجيا، ما لها، وما عليها. كيف تعمل، متى تهدأ، ومتى تشتعل.
على مدى سنواتٍ طويلة، بدا سلوك إيران عصياً على الفهم، لخروجه عن الأطوار المألوفة في النظام العالمي. لكن أحداً لم يفكّر بالسؤال عن الأسباب الحقيقية خلف بناء استراتيجيتها الكبرى على هذا النحو.
سنجد في هذا الكتاب تفسيراً عميقاً لجذور العلاقات التاريخية التي أنتجت السياسات الإيرانية، منذ بدايات العهد البلهوي الذي كان مهجوساً بالتجربة الكمالية التركية، وصولاً إلى أيامنا هذه. وبين هذه السنوات، هناك الكثير. الانقلاب على مُصدّق. صعود الشاه وسقوطه. تقرّبه من العرب وابتعاده عنهم. الثورة الإسلامية كلحظة تأسيسية جديدة في تاريخ الشرق الأوسط، وفي الصراع الداخلي بين اليسار والإسلاميين، في بلدان الشرق الأوسط. الحرب الإيرانية – العراقية وظلالها الطويلة.
كل هذا، بدءاً من دفاع إيران المقدّس، وصولاً إلى دفاعها المتقدّم، وما تبع ذلك من أزمات؛ آخرها البرنامج النووي، والمفاوضات الجديدة.
ولكن، كيف حدث كل ذلك؟
على مدى سنواتٍ طويلة، بدا سلوك إيران عصياً على الفهم، لخروجه عن الأطوار المألوفة في النظام العالمي. لكن أحداً لم يفكّر بالسؤال عن الأسباب الحقيقية خلف بناء استراتيجيتها الكبرى على هذا النحو.
سنجد في هذا الكتاب تفسيراً عميقاً لجذور العلاقات التاريخية التي أنتجت السياسات الإيرانية، منذ بدايات العهد البلهوي الذي كان مهجوساً بالتجربة الكمالية التركية، وصولاً إلى أيامنا هذه. وبين هذه السنوات، هناك الكثير. الانقلاب على مُصدّق. صعود الشاه وسقوطه. تقرّبه من العرب وابتعاده عنهم. الثورة الإسلامية كلحظة تأسيسية جديدة في تاريخ الشرق الأوسط، وفي الصراع الداخلي بين اليسار والإسلاميين، في بلدان الشرق الأوسط. الحرب الإيرانية – العراقية وظلالها الطويلة.
كل هذا، بدءاً من دفاع إيران المقدّس، وصولاً إلى دفاعها المتقدّم، وما تبع ذلك من أزمات؛ آخرها البرنامج النووي، والمفاوضات الجديدة.
ولكن، كيف حدث كل ذلك؟
450 pages, Paperback
First published May 20, 2025
105 people are currently reading
1161 people want to read
About the author
Vali Nasr
23 books115 followersSon of renowned Iranian academic Seyyed Hossein Nasr, Vali Nasr was born in Tehran in 1960, went to school in England at age 16, and immigrated to the U.S. after the 1979 Revolution. He received his BA from Tufts University in International Relations summa cum laude. He earned his masters in International Economics and Middle East Studies from the Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy in 1984, then went on to earn his PhD in Political Science from MIT in 1991.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 32 reviews
November 20, 2025
Well-written, indeed. But Vali Nasr pulls back on the United States’ culpability in shaping Iran’s strategy. Perhaps, and understandably, he fears backlash, and his primary audience consists of American policymakers who may prefer a softened critique. Yet such an abhorrent and abominable power should be called out in broad daylight, lest ignorance prevail in the United States that the world is acutely aware of its unchecked, diabolical designs.
October 15, 2025
a real eye opener on the politics and big player moves in the Middle East.
book has a lot of repetition on forward defense and sacred defense, but it makes sense given some of the more 'illogical' moves the country of Iran seems to do and also makes clear why all other bigger, more powerful countries are wary of it.
The good thing is the author doesn't recommend his blueprint for the country, but rather just lays it out for the reader to understand the news and op-eds better.
book has a lot of repetition on forward defense and sacred defense, but it makes sense given some of the more 'illogical' moves the country of Iran seems to do and also makes clear why all other bigger, more powerful countries are wary of it.
The good thing is the author doesn't recommend his blueprint for the country, but rather just lays it out for the reader to understand the news and op-eds better.
June 19, 2025
Well-written and does a great job at putting everything into context whilst refuting many of the inaccurate analyses and arguments on Iran and its foreign policy.
Tahrir Podcast interview episode with author: youtu.be/Jq6seKNEahU
Tahrir Podcast interview episode with author: youtu.be/Jq6seKNEahU
July 4, 2025
I particularly appreciated Nasr's analyzing of Iran's involvement in the Syrian conflict and sacred and forward defense and the political legacy of Rafsanjani.
Read
September 29, 2025In "Iran’s Grand Strategy: A Political History", Vali Nasr lays out a sweeping account of how Iran’s leaders have thought about security, power, and survival for centuries, and how those ideas have shaped the Islamic Republic’s defiance of the United States and its allies today. The book makes the case that Iran’s politics are not guided solely by religious zeal or anti-Western sentiment, but by a consistent strategy rooted in its long-standing quest for independence and sovereignty. That quest has taken many different forms over the centuries, but it has always been shaped by Iran’s self-image as both exceptional and isolated. To understand why Iran supports militant networks across the Middle East, why it resists American influence so fiercely, and why it insists on projecting power beyond its borders, Nasr argues we must see the deeper historical logic that underpins its choices.
Iran’s sense of itself as both unique and alone has deep roots. As the only Persian Shia state in a region dominated by Arab and Sunni powers, Iran developed a strong sense of separateness centuries ago. During the Safavid dynasty, which ruled from the early sixteenth to the early eighteenth century, Shiism was made the state religion, a move that distinguished Iran from the Sunni Ottoman Empire to the west and the Mughal Empire to the east. The Safavids enjoyed a period of imperial strength but eventually collapsed, ushering in instability and inviting outside interference. By the nineteenth century, Iran was caught between Russia and Britain, each trying to extend influence. Its survival depended on playing these rivals against each other, but that precarious balancing act taught Iranian leaders that sovereignty could not be taken for granted. Out of this realization came the Constitutional Revolution of 1906, a bold effort by clerics, merchants, and intellectuals to establish rule of law, limit monarchical authority, and guard the nation’s independence. Yet institutions on paper were not enough. What Iran needed was a strong state, able to secure its borders and impose authority at home.
That need brought Reza Khan, later Reza Shah Pahlavi, to power in the 1920s. His military strength expelled foreign troops, suppressed internal uprisings, and centralized rule. For the first time in generations, Iran enjoyed a sense of territorial integrity. Reza Shah modernized the country, invested in infrastructure, and revived national pride, but he also ruled autocratically and left little room for dissent. His reign ended when Allied powers invaded during World War II, forcing him into exile and installing his son, Mohammad Reza Shah. The younger Shah leaned toward Britain and later the United States, drawing Iran closer to Western alliances during the Cold War. But foreign dominance remained an open wound. Neither Soviet communism nor Western liberalism seemed to offer a path suited to Iran’s identity or aspirations. The search for a way to be secure, strong, and independent remained unfinished.
The tension exploded in the early 1950s. Prime Minister Mohammad Mossadegh attempted to renegotiate Iran’s oil concessions, and when that failed, he nationalized the industry outright. This move infuriated Britain and the United States while raising communist influence at home. In 1953, a coup toppled Mossadegh with foreign encouragement, returning authority to the Shah. This event burned itself into the memory of Iranian politics. It convinced many that Iran’s sovereignty could be stolen by outsiders and that dependence on the West came at a terrible price. The Shah, restored to power, embarked on sweeping reforms under the White Revolution, redistributing land, expanding women’s rights, and pushing rapid industrial growth. But the reforms came with repression, corruption, and suffocation of political freedoms. Oil money fueled modernization but also deepened inequality. The Shah’s closeness to Washington further inflamed resentment.
By the late 1970s, opposition coalesced across ideological divides. Secular nationalists and religious leaders shared a common demand: independence. In exile, Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini gave that demand its sharpest voice, insisting that only an Islamic state could guard Iran from domination. When revolution finally toppled the Shah in 1979, Khomeini returned to forge the Islamic Republic. A referendum abolished the monarchy, clerics assumed supreme authority, and anti-Americanism became a defining pillar of policy. The storming of the US embassy and the 444-day hostage crisis turned Iran into Washington’s enemy and cemented Khomeini’s power at home. While the revolution inspired Islamist movements abroad, its leaders remained primarily focused on protecting Iran’s sovereignty.
The crucible that forged Iran’s modern strategy came soon afterward, when Saddam Hussein’s Iraq invaded in 1980. The eight-year Iran–Iraq War devastated the nation but also produced a new doctrine called Sacred Defense. The idea cast the war not only as a military necessity but also as a spiritual and existential struggle. Sacred Defense mobilized the population, tied religious duty to national survival, and embedded the notion that resistance itself was the foundation of security. After the war ended in stalemate in 1988, Iran did not abandon this logic. Instead, it evolved into what came to be known as Forward Defense: the strategy of extending Iran’s reach through allies and proxies to keep threats far from its borders.
Forward Defense became visible in Lebanon, where Iranian support fostered Hezbollah in the wake of Israel’s 1982 invasion. It later extended into Iraq, Syria, and Yemen, creating a network of militias and partners that Tehran could use to project power, deter adversaries, and tie down US influence. For Iranian leaders, every act of confrontation with Washington and its allies was framed as defense. The closer America loomed, the more Iran believed it had to strike first through unconventional means. Yet this strategy also came with heavy costs. By backing militant groups, Iran alienated Arab neighbors, deepened sectarian divides, and invited crushing sanctions and international isolation. In its determination to protect itself, it often amplified the very dangers it sought to avoid.
Nasr shows how this paradox has persisted across decades, through changing presidents and shifting global landscapes. Pragmatic leaders such as Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani and Mohammad Khatami sought to rebuild the economy, open limited ties with Europe, and present a more moderate face. Their efforts culminated in the 2015 nuclear deal, which briefly reduced tensions. But the US withdrawal in 2018 reinforced hardliners’ conviction that compromise with America was futile. Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei has remained the custodian of the grand strategy, committed to resistance as the guiding principle, even as domestic discontent has grown.
The Arab Spring and the rise of ISIS reaffirmed Forward Defense as doctrine. In Syria, Iran intervened to save Bashar al-Assad, portraying the fight as protection of holy sites and national security. Against ISIS, Iran coordinated indirectly with the United States, but the struggle also cemented its control over Shia militias across Iraq. Over time, Tehran’s network of partners expanded to Yemen’s Houthis and beyond. In Gaza, support for Hamas and Islamic Jihad helped stall Israeli–Saudi normalization and elevated Iran’s standing among Palestinians. Today, Iran commands a transnational web of fighters stretching from Beirut to Sanaa, giving it influence far greater than its size or economy would otherwise allow.
But the domestic price has been steep. Economic stagnation, shrinking middle classes, inflation, and political repression have left many Iranians disillusioned. Waves of protest, from the Green Movement of 2009 to the demonstrations following Mahsa Amini’s death in 2022, have revealed the widening gulf between state and society. Many citizens question whether endless resistance justifies their hardship. Khamenei insists that sacrifice is necessary to preserve independence, but calls for reform and diplomacy are growing louder. The election of reformist Massoud Pezeshkian in 2024 hinted at the people’s desire for change, though geopolitical crises quickly overshadowed hopes for engagement with the United States.
In the end, Nasr frames Iran’s grand strategy as a hedgehog’s approach - clinging to one big idea, resistance, as the key to survival. While there have been brief moments of adaptation, the leadership has consistently returned to confrontation as its anchor. The question now is whether this strategy, born of historical trauma and shaped by war, will continue to safeguard the Islamic Republic, or whether its inflexibility will leave Iran unable to meet the challenges of a changing world.
"Iran’s Grand Strategy: A Political History" offers a penetrating look at how centuries of vulnerability, pride, and resistance have fused into a coherent yet costly vision of national security. It shows how Iran’s rulers, from the Constitutional Revolution to the present day, have sought independence above all else, even at the expense of prosperity or popular legitimacy. The book concludes that Iran’s future depends on whether it can move beyond the shadows of its past, or whether resistance will remain both its shield and its burden.
Iran’s sense of itself as both unique and alone has deep roots. As the only Persian Shia state in a region dominated by Arab and Sunni powers, Iran developed a strong sense of separateness centuries ago. During the Safavid dynasty, which ruled from the early sixteenth to the early eighteenth century, Shiism was made the state religion, a move that distinguished Iran from the Sunni Ottoman Empire to the west and the Mughal Empire to the east. The Safavids enjoyed a period of imperial strength but eventually collapsed, ushering in instability and inviting outside interference. By the nineteenth century, Iran was caught between Russia and Britain, each trying to extend influence. Its survival depended on playing these rivals against each other, but that precarious balancing act taught Iranian leaders that sovereignty could not be taken for granted. Out of this realization came the Constitutional Revolution of 1906, a bold effort by clerics, merchants, and intellectuals to establish rule of law, limit monarchical authority, and guard the nation’s independence. Yet institutions on paper were not enough. What Iran needed was a strong state, able to secure its borders and impose authority at home.
That need brought Reza Khan, later Reza Shah Pahlavi, to power in the 1920s. His military strength expelled foreign troops, suppressed internal uprisings, and centralized rule. For the first time in generations, Iran enjoyed a sense of territorial integrity. Reza Shah modernized the country, invested in infrastructure, and revived national pride, but he also ruled autocratically and left little room for dissent. His reign ended when Allied powers invaded during World War II, forcing him into exile and installing his son, Mohammad Reza Shah. The younger Shah leaned toward Britain and later the United States, drawing Iran closer to Western alliances during the Cold War. But foreign dominance remained an open wound. Neither Soviet communism nor Western liberalism seemed to offer a path suited to Iran’s identity or aspirations. The search for a way to be secure, strong, and independent remained unfinished.
The tension exploded in the early 1950s. Prime Minister Mohammad Mossadegh attempted to renegotiate Iran’s oil concessions, and when that failed, he nationalized the industry outright. This move infuriated Britain and the United States while raising communist influence at home. In 1953, a coup toppled Mossadegh with foreign encouragement, returning authority to the Shah. This event burned itself into the memory of Iranian politics. It convinced many that Iran’s sovereignty could be stolen by outsiders and that dependence on the West came at a terrible price. The Shah, restored to power, embarked on sweeping reforms under the White Revolution, redistributing land, expanding women’s rights, and pushing rapid industrial growth. But the reforms came with repression, corruption, and suffocation of political freedoms. Oil money fueled modernization but also deepened inequality. The Shah’s closeness to Washington further inflamed resentment.
By the late 1970s, opposition coalesced across ideological divides. Secular nationalists and religious leaders shared a common demand: independence. In exile, Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini gave that demand its sharpest voice, insisting that only an Islamic state could guard Iran from domination. When revolution finally toppled the Shah in 1979, Khomeini returned to forge the Islamic Republic. A referendum abolished the monarchy, clerics assumed supreme authority, and anti-Americanism became a defining pillar of policy. The storming of the US embassy and the 444-day hostage crisis turned Iran into Washington’s enemy and cemented Khomeini’s power at home. While the revolution inspired Islamist movements abroad, its leaders remained primarily focused on protecting Iran’s sovereignty.
The crucible that forged Iran’s modern strategy came soon afterward, when Saddam Hussein’s Iraq invaded in 1980. The eight-year Iran–Iraq War devastated the nation but also produced a new doctrine called Sacred Defense. The idea cast the war not only as a military necessity but also as a spiritual and existential struggle. Sacred Defense mobilized the population, tied religious duty to national survival, and embedded the notion that resistance itself was the foundation of security. After the war ended in stalemate in 1988, Iran did not abandon this logic. Instead, it evolved into what came to be known as Forward Defense: the strategy of extending Iran’s reach through allies and proxies to keep threats far from its borders.
Forward Defense became visible in Lebanon, where Iranian support fostered Hezbollah in the wake of Israel’s 1982 invasion. It later extended into Iraq, Syria, and Yemen, creating a network of militias and partners that Tehran could use to project power, deter adversaries, and tie down US influence. For Iranian leaders, every act of confrontation with Washington and its allies was framed as defense. The closer America loomed, the more Iran believed it had to strike first through unconventional means. Yet this strategy also came with heavy costs. By backing militant groups, Iran alienated Arab neighbors, deepened sectarian divides, and invited crushing sanctions and international isolation. In its determination to protect itself, it often amplified the very dangers it sought to avoid.
Nasr shows how this paradox has persisted across decades, through changing presidents and shifting global landscapes. Pragmatic leaders such as Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani and Mohammad Khatami sought to rebuild the economy, open limited ties with Europe, and present a more moderate face. Their efforts culminated in the 2015 nuclear deal, which briefly reduced tensions. But the US withdrawal in 2018 reinforced hardliners’ conviction that compromise with America was futile. Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei has remained the custodian of the grand strategy, committed to resistance as the guiding principle, even as domestic discontent has grown.
The Arab Spring and the rise of ISIS reaffirmed Forward Defense as doctrine. In Syria, Iran intervened to save Bashar al-Assad, portraying the fight as protection of holy sites and national security. Against ISIS, Iran coordinated indirectly with the United States, but the struggle also cemented its control over Shia militias across Iraq. Over time, Tehran’s network of partners expanded to Yemen’s Houthis and beyond. In Gaza, support for Hamas and Islamic Jihad helped stall Israeli–Saudi normalization and elevated Iran’s standing among Palestinians. Today, Iran commands a transnational web of fighters stretching from Beirut to Sanaa, giving it influence far greater than its size or economy would otherwise allow.
But the domestic price has been steep. Economic stagnation, shrinking middle classes, inflation, and political repression have left many Iranians disillusioned. Waves of protest, from the Green Movement of 2009 to the demonstrations following Mahsa Amini’s death in 2022, have revealed the widening gulf between state and society. Many citizens question whether endless resistance justifies their hardship. Khamenei insists that sacrifice is necessary to preserve independence, but calls for reform and diplomacy are growing louder. The election of reformist Massoud Pezeshkian in 2024 hinted at the people’s desire for change, though geopolitical crises quickly overshadowed hopes for engagement with the United States.
In the end, Nasr frames Iran’s grand strategy as a hedgehog’s approach - clinging to one big idea, resistance, as the key to survival. While there have been brief moments of adaptation, the leadership has consistently returned to confrontation as its anchor. The question now is whether this strategy, born of historical trauma and shaped by war, will continue to safeguard the Islamic Republic, or whether its inflexibility will leave Iran unable to meet the challenges of a changing world.
"Iran’s Grand Strategy: A Political History" offers a penetrating look at how centuries of vulnerability, pride, and resistance have fused into a coherent yet costly vision of national security. It shows how Iran’s rulers, from the Constitutional Revolution to the present day, have sought independence above all else, even at the expense of prosperity or popular legitimacy. The book concludes that Iran’s future depends on whether it can move beyond the shadows of its past, or whether resistance will remain both its shield and its burden.
September 6, 2025
هذا الكتاب مهم يشرح جيداً كيف يفكر القادة الإيرانيون ولماذا تنخرط إيران في صراعات وحروب مختلفة في الشرق الأوسط.
November 21, 2025
#Nonfiction
#Bookworm
📘 𝐁𝐨𝐨𝐤 𝐑𝐞𝐯𝐢𝐞𝐰: 𝐈𝐫𝐚𝐧’𝐬 𝐆𝐫𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐒𝐭𝐫𝐚𝐭𝐞𝐠𝐲: 𝐀 𝐏𝐨𝐥𝐢𝐭𝐢𝐜𝐚𝐥 𝐇𝐢𝐬𝐭𝐨𝐫𝐲
𝐀𝐮𝐭𝐡𝐨𝐫: Vali Nasr — an Iranian-American scholar, former Dean of the Johns Hopkins School of Advanced International Studies (SAIS), and trusted adviser on Middle Eastern policy.
In this compelling 2025 release, Nasr argues that modern Iran’s trajectory isn’t defined by a simple democracy vs. dictatorship or religion vs. ideology narrative—it’s fundamentally about security. He shows how historical traumas—from the treaties of Treaty of Golestan and Treaty of Turkmenchay ceding Persian lands to Russia, to the long-shadow of British imperial exploitation—have implanted an enduring fear of territorial vulnerability in Iran’s psyche.
The book then explores how the Pahlavi shah aimed to secure Iran through economic development and regional dominance, only for the 1979 Revolution to radically alter the framework. Iran’s protracted conflict with Iraq becomes a turning point—a doctrine of “sacred defence” and forward defence through proxies, ensuring Western involvement stayed at arm’s length.
Since the Revolution, Iran’s security apparatus has evolved into a dominant force—one that has achieved strategic autonomy but at enormous social and economic cost. Nasr poses the important question: can Iran’s forward-defence policy continue indefinitely—and is the trade-off it demands worth it?
#NonFiction #BookReview #Iran #Recommended #MustRead
#Bookworm
📘 𝐁𝐨𝐨𝐤 𝐑𝐞𝐯𝐢𝐞𝐰: 𝐈𝐫𝐚𝐧’𝐬 𝐆𝐫𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐒𝐭𝐫𝐚𝐭𝐞𝐠𝐲: 𝐀 𝐏𝐨𝐥𝐢𝐭𝐢𝐜𝐚𝐥 𝐇𝐢𝐬𝐭𝐨𝐫𝐲
𝐀𝐮𝐭𝐡𝐨𝐫: Vali Nasr — an Iranian-American scholar, former Dean of the Johns Hopkins School of Advanced International Studies (SAIS), and trusted adviser on Middle Eastern policy.
In this compelling 2025 release, Nasr argues that modern Iran’s trajectory isn’t defined by a simple democracy vs. dictatorship or religion vs. ideology narrative—it’s fundamentally about security. He shows how historical traumas—from the treaties of Treaty of Golestan and Treaty of Turkmenchay ceding Persian lands to Russia, to the long-shadow of British imperial exploitation—have implanted an enduring fear of territorial vulnerability in Iran’s psyche.
The book then explores how the Pahlavi shah aimed to secure Iran through economic development and regional dominance, only for the 1979 Revolution to radically alter the framework. Iran’s protracted conflict with Iraq becomes a turning point—a doctrine of “sacred defence” and forward defence through proxies, ensuring Western involvement stayed at arm’s length.
Since the Revolution, Iran’s security apparatus has evolved into a dominant force—one that has achieved strategic autonomy but at enormous social and economic cost. Nasr poses the important question: can Iran’s forward-defence policy continue indefinitely—and is the trade-off it demands worth it?
#NonFiction #BookReview #Iran #Recommended #MustRead
October 5, 2025
One of the best books I’ve read this year, and one of the best books I’ve ever read about Iran. Nasr demonstrates the complexity of the Islamic Republic of Iran, showing that at various times it can alternate from dogmatism to pragmatism to pursue its interests. There is good analysis of Iran’s networks of proxies and how global conflicts like the Gaza and Ukraine wars affect Iran’s status and its regional designs.
September 29, 2025
This is about to be a bit of a dense sprint read while I procrastinate on shit I need to do
(note to self I may need to re-read parts that went over my head a little from the history recap)
If you’ve been following the Gaza war, you might have come across the term 'Axis of Resistance.' This network of allied militias, spanning from Lebanon to Yemen, is the product of decades of effort by Iran’s political elite. What unites them is their shared goal: driving the US and its allies out of the region for good.
Recently, Iran’s proxy network has united fronts from Lebanon to Gaza under an anti-Israel mission, stalling Saudi-Israeli normalisation and raising Iran’s standing among Palestinians. Given the lack of young people at home, Tehran needs the young soldiers abroad, and has recruited tens of thousands from Iraq, Yemen, Gaza, and Afghanistan into groups like the Fatimiyoun Brigade and Popular Mobilisation Forces.
notes:
- Henry Kissinger believed that Iran’s motives were rooted in religious ideology. That changed in 2015, when he met an Iranian emissary
- To understand the driving forces of modern Iran, we need to understand how Iran sees itself. In that regard, there are two qualities that have come to define Iran’s sense of self: it is both unique and alone.
It is unique because it is the only Persian Shia state in a region dominated by Arab and Turkic Sunni powers. This also ties into why Iran feels alone in the world, but its sense of grandeur and vulnerability goes back to the Safavid dynasty, which lasted from around 1501 to 1722. During this period, a distinctly Persian Shia identity emerged, designed to differentiate Iran from the Sunni Ottoman Empire to the west and the Mughal Empire to the east. Safavid kings enforced Shiism as the state religion and for a while they achieved imperial power, but their subsequent fall in the eighteenth century ushered in a long era of instability and foreign meddling.
- In the nineteenth and twentieth centuries, Iran faced two different empirical, east-west threats: Russian expansion on the one side and British ambitions on the other. Iran survived in part because these two forces could not agree on how to divide it, allowing Tehran to play them against each other.
- If it was going to survive and remain sovereign, it needed to create a stronger state. So, in 1906 came the Constitutional Revolution, led by an unlikely coalition of merchants, intellectuals, and clerics. They created the region’s first constitution with an aim to limit monarchy, establish rule of law, and safeguard independence
- World War I. In 1921, military officer Reza Khan seized power
- Urged by clerics to restore the monarchy, he became Reza Shah Pahlavi. His reign brought back a sense of territorial integrity, centralized authority, and launched modernization – but also veered into autocracy.
- Reza Shah’s reign was cut short by the onset of World War II, which once again turned Iran into a battleground for global powers. The war devastated Iran’s economy and sovereignty as Britain and the Soviet Union invaded, exiled Reza Shah, and installed his son, Mohammad Reza Shah.
- neither side had answers for Iran’s problems. Neither the communism of the East nor the liberalism of the West suited the leadership of Iran. It seemed they were alone in trying to find the right balance of security, strength, cultural preservation, and development.
- While Iran sided with Britain after World War II, Britain exploited the country through a one-sided oil deal that was unsustainable. In 1951, Prime Minister Mohammad Mossadegh attempted to renegotiate Iran’s oil deal. When talks failed, he boldly nationalized the oil industry. This dramatic move alienated Britain and the United States while inadvertently boosting communist influence at home.
- As a result, in 1953, Mossadegh was ousted in a coup driven largely by Iranian military actors but encouraged by foreign powers. The Shah seized the opportunity to consolidate his rule and align closely with Washington, paving the way for the 1963 White Revolution, which saw sweeping reforms that included land redistribution, women’s suffrage, and rapid industrialization, but also repression, corruption, and the removal of his political opponents.
In short, while oil wealth fueled rapid development, traditional life was disrupted, political freedoms were tightly restricted, and close ties to America fed resentment. Protests swelled.
- 1978 to plan Iran’s future. Sanjabi’s draft vision called for a democratic and Islamic state, but Khomeini added one more word: “independence” (or esteqlal). That addition became the revolution’s third and most enduring pillar. For Khomeini, an Islamic state was the ultimate shield against foreign domination, rooted in his early experience witnessing Shia resistance to British rule in Iraq. By the 1970s, all factions opposing the Shah – leftist-Marxists, liberal democrats, or devoutly religious – shared the belief that the 1953 coup had stolen Iran’s sovereignty. Once in power, Khomeini aimed to expel US influence entirely and sever ties with Israel, reversing the Shah’s policies.
- A rumor that America planned to reinstall the Shah led leftist university students to storm the US embassy, sparking a 444-day hostage crisis.
- Iran’s new leadership, led by figures like Ali Khamenei and Ali Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani, had a foreign policy that could be summed up in the motto “Neither East nor West.” Independence from both Cold War superpowers was the aim. They resisted turning the Islamic Revolution of 1979 into a global cause. After all, in 1980, their attention was soon on their invading neighbor, Iraq.
- Following the Iran-Iraq War, the sacred defense policy changed to a similar strategy, known as Forward Defense. Following the ‘79 revolution, Iran was now the Islamic Republic. Part of its foundational principles was to back Islamist causes in the region, but this wasn’t goodwill on the part of Khomeini, it was still a matter of strategy and survival – of defense.
- Iran’s support was most successful in Lebanon. Shia activism there, boosted by Iran’s post-revolution networks, transformed into Hezbollah, especially after Israel’s 1982 invasion. This gave Tehran a powerful foothold in the Arab world and a way to confront both Israel and the US directly. In the Forward Defense mindset: as long as America and its allies were in the region, they were a threat to Iran. The closer the US got, the more likely it was to try to orchestrate another regime change.
-But backing Islamist causes often came with isolating and unhelpful side effects. Iran’s actions alienated neighbors like Saudi Arabia, thereby pushing them towards a US-backed regional alignment against it. Even during the Iran-Iraq War, Gulf monarchies were terrified of Iran’s revolution spreading beyond its borders, so they helped bankroll Saddam’s war effort.
- When the Iran-Iraq War ended in 1988, neither side won
- But the war also left Iran depleted and in need of rebuilding. So, for the next sixteen years, two pragmatic and reform-minded presidents made progress in developing the nation and rebuilding infrastructure
- The presidential efforts toward international diplomacy reached its peak in the 2015 nuclear deal that briefly eased sanctions. But the US withdrawal in 2018 effectively closed that opening and reignited Iran’s anti-American furor
- When protests erupted against Syrian president Bashar al-Assad in 2011, Iran saw a direct threat to their strategy of keeping dangers far from its borders. Iran deployed troops, Hezbollah fighters, and Shia militias, framing the war as defense of holy sites and national security.
- Another threat arose in 2014, in the form of the Islamic State for Iraq and Syria, better known as ISIS. With its anti-Shia brutality, and the very real danger of their taking over Iraq, fighting ISIS had so much domestic support that Iran even coordinated indirectly with the US in their military efforts.
-iran’s involvement in Syria also resulted in a strategic partnership with its old nemesis, Russia. Iran went on to provide drone and missile support for Moscow’s war in Ukraine. But Tehran also benefited from joint trade projects, and a sanctions-resistant corridor from the Black Sea to the Arabian Sea.
- Iran armed and trained the Houthis, who by 2020 controlled Sanaa and threatened both Saudi and Emirati cities. By mid-decade, Iran’s influence extended to Baghdad, Beirut, Damascus, and Sanaa, underpinned by a growing missile arsenal for deterrence and proxy empowerment. Missile strikes on US bases in Iraq and on Israel demonstrated their capability.
- Iran’s forward defense strategy has made strides over the past couple decades in increasing its influence in the region. However, it always comes at a cost. While the hardliners may believe that isolation is forever part of Iran’s identity, and that militant aggression is necessary for survival, this hasn’t inspired Iranians with hope for the future.
- as daily life becomes increasingly difficult, more Iranians question whether endless 'resistance' is worth the cost.
- The 2022 movement exposed deep cracks: reformists, moderates, and pragmatic government veterans began openly questioning whether unyielding resistance was sustainable.
- There have been brief flashes of fox-like adaptability, such as Iran achieving a détente with Saudi Arabia in 2023. The pressing question is whether Khamenei will heed the voices of the Iranian people and adapt, or if his steadfast commitment to an outdated strategy will render the nation too inflexible to face future challenges.
(note to self I may need to re-read parts that went over my head a little from the history recap)
If you’ve been following the Gaza war, you might have come across the term 'Axis of Resistance.' This network of allied militias, spanning from Lebanon to Yemen, is the product of decades of effort by Iran’s political elite. What unites them is their shared goal: driving the US and its allies out of the region for good.
Recently, Iran’s proxy network has united fronts from Lebanon to Gaza under an anti-Israel mission, stalling Saudi-Israeli normalisation and raising Iran’s standing among Palestinians. Given the lack of young people at home, Tehran needs the young soldiers abroad, and has recruited tens of thousands from Iraq, Yemen, Gaza, and Afghanistan into groups like the Fatimiyoun Brigade and Popular Mobilisation Forces.
notes:
- Henry Kissinger believed that Iran’s motives were rooted in religious ideology. That changed in 2015, when he met an Iranian emissary
- To understand the driving forces of modern Iran, we need to understand how Iran sees itself. In that regard, there are two qualities that have come to define Iran’s sense of self: it is both unique and alone.
It is unique because it is the only Persian Shia state in a region dominated by Arab and Turkic Sunni powers. This also ties into why Iran feels alone in the world, but its sense of grandeur and vulnerability goes back to the Safavid dynasty, which lasted from around 1501 to 1722. During this period, a distinctly Persian Shia identity emerged, designed to differentiate Iran from the Sunni Ottoman Empire to the west and the Mughal Empire to the east. Safavid kings enforced Shiism as the state religion and for a while they achieved imperial power, but their subsequent fall in the eighteenth century ushered in a long era of instability and foreign meddling.
- In the nineteenth and twentieth centuries, Iran faced two different empirical, east-west threats: Russian expansion on the one side and British ambitions on the other. Iran survived in part because these two forces could not agree on how to divide it, allowing Tehran to play them against each other.
- If it was going to survive and remain sovereign, it needed to create a stronger state. So, in 1906 came the Constitutional Revolution, led by an unlikely coalition of merchants, intellectuals, and clerics. They created the region’s first constitution with an aim to limit monarchy, establish rule of law, and safeguard independence
- World War I. In 1921, military officer Reza Khan seized power
- Urged by clerics to restore the monarchy, he became Reza Shah Pahlavi. His reign brought back a sense of territorial integrity, centralized authority, and launched modernization – but also veered into autocracy.
- Reza Shah’s reign was cut short by the onset of World War II, which once again turned Iran into a battleground for global powers. The war devastated Iran’s economy and sovereignty as Britain and the Soviet Union invaded, exiled Reza Shah, and installed his son, Mohammad Reza Shah.
- neither side had answers for Iran’s problems. Neither the communism of the East nor the liberalism of the West suited the leadership of Iran. It seemed they were alone in trying to find the right balance of security, strength, cultural preservation, and development.
- While Iran sided with Britain after World War II, Britain exploited the country through a one-sided oil deal that was unsustainable. In 1951, Prime Minister Mohammad Mossadegh attempted to renegotiate Iran’s oil deal. When talks failed, he boldly nationalized the oil industry. This dramatic move alienated Britain and the United States while inadvertently boosting communist influence at home.
- As a result, in 1953, Mossadegh was ousted in a coup driven largely by Iranian military actors but encouraged by foreign powers. The Shah seized the opportunity to consolidate his rule and align closely with Washington, paving the way for the 1963 White Revolution, which saw sweeping reforms that included land redistribution, women’s suffrage, and rapid industrialization, but also repression, corruption, and the removal of his political opponents.
In short, while oil wealth fueled rapid development, traditional life was disrupted, political freedoms were tightly restricted, and close ties to America fed resentment. Protests swelled.
- 1978 to plan Iran’s future. Sanjabi’s draft vision called for a democratic and Islamic state, but Khomeini added one more word: “independence” (or esteqlal). That addition became the revolution’s third and most enduring pillar. For Khomeini, an Islamic state was the ultimate shield against foreign domination, rooted in his early experience witnessing Shia resistance to British rule in Iraq. By the 1970s, all factions opposing the Shah – leftist-Marxists, liberal democrats, or devoutly religious – shared the belief that the 1953 coup had stolen Iran’s sovereignty. Once in power, Khomeini aimed to expel US influence entirely and sever ties with Israel, reversing the Shah’s policies.
- A rumor that America planned to reinstall the Shah led leftist university students to storm the US embassy, sparking a 444-day hostage crisis.
- Iran’s new leadership, led by figures like Ali Khamenei and Ali Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani, had a foreign policy that could be summed up in the motto “Neither East nor West.” Independence from both Cold War superpowers was the aim. They resisted turning the Islamic Revolution of 1979 into a global cause. After all, in 1980, their attention was soon on their invading neighbor, Iraq.
- Following the Iran-Iraq War, the sacred defense policy changed to a similar strategy, known as Forward Defense. Following the ‘79 revolution, Iran was now the Islamic Republic. Part of its foundational principles was to back Islamist causes in the region, but this wasn’t goodwill on the part of Khomeini, it was still a matter of strategy and survival – of defense.
- Iran’s support was most successful in Lebanon. Shia activism there, boosted by Iran’s post-revolution networks, transformed into Hezbollah, especially after Israel’s 1982 invasion. This gave Tehran a powerful foothold in the Arab world and a way to confront both Israel and the US directly. In the Forward Defense mindset: as long as America and its allies were in the region, they were a threat to Iran. The closer the US got, the more likely it was to try to orchestrate another regime change.
-But backing Islamist causes often came with isolating and unhelpful side effects. Iran’s actions alienated neighbors like Saudi Arabia, thereby pushing them towards a US-backed regional alignment against it. Even during the Iran-Iraq War, Gulf monarchies were terrified of Iran’s revolution spreading beyond its borders, so they helped bankroll Saddam’s war effort.
- When the Iran-Iraq War ended in 1988, neither side won
- But the war also left Iran depleted and in need of rebuilding. So, for the next sixteen years, two pragmatic and reform-minded presidents made progress in developing the nation and rebuilding infrastructure
- The presidential efforts toward international diplomacy reached its peak in the 2015 nuclear deal that briefly eased sanctions. But the US withdrawal in 2018 effectively closed that opening and reignited Iran’s anti-American furor
- When protests erupted against Syrian president Bashar al-Assad in 2011, Iran saw a direct threat to their strategy of keeping dangers far from its borders. Iran deployed troops, Hezbollah fighters, and Shia militias, framing the war as defense of holy sites and national security.
- Another threat arose in 2014, in the form of the Islamic State for Iraq and Syria, better known as ISIS. With its anti-Shia brutality, and the very real danger of their taking over Iraq, fighting ISIS had so much domestic support that Iran even coordinated indirectly with the US in their military efforts.
-iran’s involvement in Syria also resulted in a strategic partnership with its old nemesis, Russia. Iran went on to provide drone and missile support for Moscow’s war in Ukraine. But Tehran also benefited from joint trade projects, and a sanctions-resistant corridor from the Black Sea to the Arabian Sea.
- Iran armed and trained the Houthis, who by 2020 controlled Sanaa and threatened both Saudi and Emirati cities. By mid-decade, Iran’s influence extended to Baghdad, Beirut, Damascus, and Sanaa, underpinned by a growing missile arsenal for deterrence and proxy empowerment. Missile strikes on US bases in Iraq and on Israel demonstrated their capability.
- Iran’s forward defense strategy has made strides over the past couple decades in increasing its influence in the region. However, it always comes at a cost. While the hardliners may believe that isolation is forever part of Iran’s identity, and that militant aggression is necessary for survival, this hasn’t inspired Iranians with hope for the future.
- as daily life becomes increasingly difficult, more Iranians question whether endless 'resistance' is worth the cost.
- The 2022 movement exposed deep cracks: reformists, moderates, and pragmatic government veterans began openly questioning whether unyielding resistance was sustainable.
- There have been brief flashes of fox-like adaptability, such as Iran achieving a détente with Saudi Arabia in 2023. The pressing question is whether Khamenei will heed the voices of the Iranian people and adapt, or if his steadfast commitment to an outdated strategy will render the nation too inflexible to face future challenges.
July 8, 2025
Vali Nasr's Iran's Grand Strategy is an excellent and timely book, and certainly one that anyone who's interested in the Middle East should read. Nasr's points are clearly articulated and his arguments are strong. Reading this book makes it clear that American politicians completely misapprehend the Islamic Republic, and perhaps even more importantly, it subtly suggests a vision for what a different world -- a different Iran and a different America -- might look like.
Nasr begins with a straightforward, incisive account of Iranian history. Beginning with the Safavid Empire and the British/Russian imperial presence in Iran is a smart choice, showing how the modern Iranian regime is partially rooted in the last several hundred years of Iranian lived experience. Nasr connects this to the 20th century and the Iranian Revolution by focusing on the drive for independence: even more important to Khomeini than opposing the United States or establishing a theocracy was becoming truly independent from outside forces.
Likewise, the book does an excellent job explaining Iran's strategic choices as a rational (though often self-defeating) effort to assert independence and defeat any chance of regime change, either internally or externally imposed. Far from the dominant American perception of the Islamic Republic as an unhinged, extremist religious force, he shows Iran to be a country constantly in debate with itself. Just as hard-liners seek to entrench the IRGC within the Iranian economy and develop complete independence from the West, so do reformists argue for greater ties with the West and integration into the global economy.
Most crucially, Nasr shows how this tug-of-war has influenced Iranian politics in the 21st century and how the Iranian people have remained consistently unhappy with the ruling regime. President Rouhani and the negotiation of the JCPOA were largely concessions to reformists, the hopeful first step towards a revolution in Iranian foreign policy. And America's subsequent actions -- unilaterally withdrawing from the JCPOA, imposing "maximum pressure" sanctions, and assassinating an Iranian general -- increased the hard-liners' power and incentivized Iran to push harder for nuclear weapons. So much of U.S. policy toward Iran in the last several years has been utterly unmoored from reality, ignorant of Iranian domestic politics and evidently self-defeating. And especially now, in the wake of the most brazen U.S. action against Iran since the 1953 coup, this is a crucial and deeply under-discussed message.
This book doesn't attempt to suggest any path forward for Iran or the U.S., and recent events since its publication seem to push a real resolution ever further into the distant future. But just by painting this picture, Nasr suggests how different an Iranian foreign policy, and by extension a U.S.-Iran relationship, could look. If the JCPOA had been upheld and Iranians had felt the economic benefits of sanctions relief, perhaps the regime may have felt further pressure to liberalize and open to the West. If the U.S. stood behind its stated intent to disengage from the Middle East and abandon Iranian regime change, maybe the IRGC's domestic power would abate and Iran might be more willing to relax its proxy military forces.
These ideas have been missing for too long from U.S. foreign policy, and especially since the last few years have only further intensified Iran's nuclear advancements and proxy warfare, policy-makers ought to reckon deeply with them. This is why Iran's Grand Strategy is such a timely book, and why Vali Nasr has written a tremendously insightful work of history and politics. Accordingly, I would strongly recommend this book to anyone interested in foreign policy or the Middle East.
Nasr begins with a straightforward, incisive account of Iranian history. Beginning with the Safavid Empire and the British/Russian imperial presence in Iran is a smart choice, showing how the modern Iranian regime is partially rooted in the last several hundred years of Iranian lived experience. Nasr connects this to the 20th century and the Iranian Revolution by focusing on the drive for independence: even more important to Khomeini than opposing the United States or establishing a theocracy was becoming truly independent from outside forces.
Likewise, the book does an excellent job explaining Iran's strategic choices as a rational (though often self-defeating) effort to assert independence and defeat any chance of regime change, either internally or externally imposed. Far from the dominant American perception of the Islamic Republic as an unhinged, extremist religious force, he shows Iran to be a country constantly in debate with itself. Just as hard-liners seek to entrench the IRGC within the Iranian economy and develop complete independence from the West, so do reformists argue for greater ties with the West and integration into the global economy.
Most crucially, Nasr shows how this tug-of-war has influenced Iranian politics in the 21st century and how the Iranian people have remained consistently unhappy with the ruling regime. President Rouhani and the negotiation of the JCPOA were largely concessions to reformists, the hopeful first step towards a revolution in Iranian foreign policy. And America's subsequent actions -- unilaterally withdrawing from the JCPOA, imposing "maximum pressure" sanctions, and assassinating an Iranian general -- increased the hard-liners' power and incentivized Iran to push harder for nuclear weapons. So much of U.S. policy toward Iran in the last several years has been utterly unmoored from reality, ignorant of Iranian domestic politics and evidently self-defeating. And especially now, in the wake of the most brazen U.S. action against Iran since the 1953 coup, this is a crucial and deeply under-discussed message.
This book doesn't attempt to suggest any path forward for Iran or the U.S., and recent events since its publication seem to push a real resolution ever further into the distant future. But just by painting this picture, Nasr suggests how different an Iranian foreign policy, and by extension a U.S.-Iran relationship, could look. If the JCPOA had been upheld and Iranians had felt the economic benefits of sanctions relief, perhaps the regime may have felt further pressure to liberalize and open to the West. If the U.S. stood behind its stated intent to disengage from the Middle East and abandon Iranian regime change, maybe the IRGC's domestic power would abate and Iran might be more willing to relax its proxy military forces.
These ideas have been missing for too long from U.S. foreign policy, and especially since the last few years have only further intensified Iran's nuclear advancements and proxy warfare, policy-makers ought to reckon deeply with them. This is why Iran's Grand Strategy is such a timely book, and why Vali Nasr has written a tremendously insightful work of history and politics. Accordingly, I would strongly recommend this book to anyone interested in foreign policy or the Middle East.
July 12, 2025
Engaging book. I listened to it randomly thinking it would be quite poor, but I love reading stuff few have reviewed. This surprised me very positively.
The language is clean, points direct, analysis clear, and arguments seem valid. It's a good little intro to Iran and their goals. Post the Shia coup in Iran Saddam Hussein in Iraq felt they were too weak now to keep Kurds in check. Meaning they could gain power and also create their own nation in Iraq afterwards. He started a long-term war that now defined Iran as a war nation always on edge. They though USA helped Iraq. Now all they do is against USA and even their nuclear bomb development is only to have stronger cards in a negotiation with USA nothing else. The author notes various liberal and conservative movements. But nothing much changes as they still see the need to work with Russia and China against USA. The population is angry yet leadership doesn't care.
There are also quite a few logical issues here. The author never dares to criticize anyone so no point is fully explored. Israel is seldom mentioned and never explored which is a giant error. At one point the author notes that Iran was opening up to all, except Israel. Why not Israel specifically? He never explains. All we know is that Israel is Western and Iran fears the West after their wars. That's it? The author skips 99% of the story here. What about Holocaust denial?
The author also loves to analyze things which is always done cleanly, but over half the book is opinions not history. It becomes his opinion piece. The modern history of Iran is not fully explored here you need to read another book for that.
It also feels that he just repeats his narrow ideas. We don't even get an explanation for WHY Iran hates USA. He claims they do and so they react a certain way. Do they hate other nations like Israel to the same degree? And what about their war with Saudi Arabia? It's not easy to understand why they start specific wars. Why did China and Russia not agree with them on the islands they annexed from UAE in 1971? Even Arab nations are saying Iran stole these islands. But we don't get an explanation. Why would the nation that delivers weapons to Russia to use against Ukraine not get support back in any way? We are a bit perplexed about historical elements as he adores to interpret things instead of explaining them clearly and factually.
The "why" not being explained is a lingering issue. One could use psychology theories or some historical concepts at least. I don't think that's out of order. If you think it's too biased then try to pick a few different theories. Or become an expert on that stuff too. This is a long opinion piece. It's very good, but I like history more.
The language is clean, points direct, analysis clear, and arguments seem valid. It's a good little intro to Iran and their goals. Post the Shia coup in Iran Saddam Hussein in Iraq felt they were too weak now to keep Kurds in check. Meaning they could gain power and also create their own nation in Iraq afterwards. He started a long-term war that now defined Iran as a war nation always on edge. They though USA helped Iraq. Now all they do is against USA and even their nuclear bomb development is only to have stronger cards in a negotiation with USA nothing else. The author notes various liberal and conservative movements. But nothing much changes as they still see the need to work with Russia and China against USA. The population is angry yet leadership doesn't care.
There are also quite a few logical issues here. The author never dares to criticize anyone so no point is fully explored. Israel is seldom mentioned and never explored which is a giant error. At one point the author notes that Iran was opening up to all, except Israel. Why not Israel specifically? He never explains. All we know is that Israel is Western and Iran fears the West after their wars. That's it? The author skips 99% of the story here. What about Holocaust denial?
The author also loves to analyze things which is always done cleanly, but over half the book is opinions not history. It becomes his opinion piece. The modern history of Iran is not fully explored here you need to read another book for that.
It also feels that he just repeats his narrow ideas. We don't even get an explanation for WHY Iran hates USA. He claims they do and so they react a certain way. Do they hate other nations like Israel to the same degree? And what about their war with Saudi Arabia? It's not easy to understand why they start specific wars. Why did China and Russia not agree with them on the islands they annexed from UAE in 1971? Even Arab nations are saying Iran stole these islands. But we don't get an explanation. Why would the nation that delivers weapons to Russia to use against Ukraine not get support back in any way? We are a bit perplexed about historical elements as he adores to interpret things instead of explaining them clearly and factually.
The "why" not being explained is a lingering issue. One could use psychology theories or some historical concepts at least. I don't think that's out of order. If you think it's too biased then try to pick a few different theories. Or become an expert on that stuff too. This is a long opinion piece. It's very good, but I like history more.
December 18, 2025
It seems like Nasr set out to write an account of the Iranian security state’s outlook and motivations through a realist lens without delving too deep into their guiding moral principles and ideologies. His opinions (and notable lack thereof) are sprinkled throughout the book, but it comes through most strongly in the end, where it appears that he basically appraises Resistance to be a failure mixed bag, in the long-term, and encourages the IR to adopt a more practical approach towards the US, which is fair enough, but he doesn’t call what’s happening to Gaza a genocide, because I guess that would have reoriented the focus of his book, and also maybe because he doesn’t believe it, so I gotta dock a point for that.
Another thing looming over the whole book was the fact that it was obviously written and published before the so-called “12-Day War,” but I guess that’s just unlucky.
All-in-all, it’s a good intro for someone interested in the perspective that the Iranian state is a rational actor with its own set of interests and internally-disputing factions. Also helps me understand what my cousins are talking about and why they resent the Palestinian cause so much.
Another thing looming over the whole book was the fact that it was obviously written and published before the so-called “12-Day War,” but I guess that’s just unlucky.
All-in-all, it’s a good intro for someone interested in the perspective that the Iranian state is a rational actor with its own set of interests and internally-disputing factions. Also helps me understand what my cousins are talking about and why they resent the Palestinian cause so much.
July 19, 2025
Vali Nasr in “Iran’s Grand Strategy” did what many similar books fail to do: take an idea that could be an article in Foreign Affairs and give it the depth required for a book.
Setting it apart is that at its core it is a history boo, and a strong one at that. The central argument of the book is made by the history, with an incredible level of depth. It is essentially an argument that makes itself through the presented history.
I appreciated how Dr. Nasr kept terms in Persian, it is always an addition I welcome to books on Iran (however, I would’ve loved it even more if script was in the parentheses alongside the transliteration!).
One of the most profound takeaways I had from the book came near the end, with the discussion comparing the 2022 Women, Life, Freedom protests to the Green Movement, and how sanctions have muted Iranians’ ability to protest. This point goes unmentioned in most other literature about how sanctions against Iran have hurt civilians. Unfortunately, this discussion left me wanting more - and by more - I of course mean another book by Dr. Nasr.
آفرین
Setting it apart is that at its core it is a history boo, and a strong one at that. The central argument of the book is made by the history, with an incredible level of depth. It is essentially an argument that makes itself through the presented history.
I appreciated how Dr. Nasr kept terms in Persian, it is always an addition I welcome to books on Iran (however, I would’ve loved it even more if script was in the parentheses alongside the transliteration!).
One of the most profound takeaways I had from the book came near the end, with the discussion comparing the 2022 Women, Life, Freedom protests to the Green Movement, and how sanctions have muted Iranians’ ability to protest. This point goes unmentioned in most other literature about how sanctions against Iran have hurt civilians. Unfortunately, this discussion left me wanting more - and by more - I of course mean another book by Dr. Nasr.
آفرین
July 14, 2025
A key value of the book is as follows: responsible geopolitical policy is founded on understanding the way a country reasons. This book, then, is focused on using Iranian history as a way to understand the thinking of the Islamic Republic. The history focuses mostly on the revolution onwards, with the exception one sprawling chapter on what came before 1979. Nasr argues that national defense and the fear of external influence are the chief motivating factors of the Islamic Republic. However, just like humans, countries have their fair share of internal contradictions and inconsistent motivations which force compromise. So we learn about all these forces: the obdurate defenders of sacred and forward defense and the moderates seeking compromise and more engagement with the west (despite how difficult the United States makes this for them). While this book was written before key events (the fall of Assad and the recent Israel-Iran war), this is a key book to anyone who wants to understand where the middle east will go in the decades to come.
October 13, 2025
This was almost a five star - hit it out of the ballpark-informative book, until I came across the patently ridiculous assertion that Netanyahu did what he did in Gaza because of some existential fear that Iran would go nuclear.
Huh? What? Come again?
Killing a civilian population, shredding international law to pieces at every opportunity, bombing hospitals, turning off the power supply in neonatal units, ordering staff to leave so the premie babies were left to die, confiscating baby formula from all medical staff trying to get in to Gaza, kidnapping people trying to deliver aid, kidnapping them on international waters, not letting food in, killing tens of thousands of children indiscriminately, assassinating journalist after journalist to the very end, killing anyone they felt like killing anywhere in the world, annexing the West Bank, shooting dead anyone they felt like killing when civilians were lining up for food aid…yes Netanyahu’s Israel did all these things because they are scared Iran may get nuclear weapons.
Other than that, the book made sense.
Huh? What? Come again?
Killing a civilian population, shredding international law to pieces at every opportunity, bombing hospitals, turning off the power supply in neonatal units, ordering staff to leave so the premie babies were left to die, confiscating baby formula from all medical staff trying to get in to Gaza, kidnapping people trying to deliver aid, kidnapping them on international waters, not letting food in, killing tens of thousands of children indiscriminately, assassinating journalist after journalist to the very end, killing anyone they felt like killing anywhere in the world, annexing the West Bank, shooting dead anyone they felt like killing when civilians were lining up for food aid…yes Netanyahu’s Israel did all these things because they are scared Iran may get nuclear weapons.
Other than that, the book made sense.
July 23, 2025
This is a very timely book, looking at Iran's foreign policy, and how it relates to domestic policy. The author starts in the 19th century, and works his way to the present. The book was written in late 2024, so it ends with Pezeshkian's presidency, and Israeli decimation of Hezbollah, and doesn't include events that occurred in 2025. Much of the material in the book will be familiar to people with at least a passing knowledge of Iran. However, the author's focus on the interaction between domestic and foreign policy provides a unique window of insight into both. Very well researched and written.
September 9, 2025
Incredibly informative about Iran’s 20th century history. Offers level-headed explanations for the Iranian state’s decisions regarding foreign policy and national defence. Rightfully steers clear of depicting Iran as a ideologically rabid and irrational actor purely driven by fervour, instead demonstrates that Iran operates primarily from a rational, if at times misguided, position of seeking to expand its regional influence, increase its own security, and push back against the machinations of the United States and its allies in the Middle East.
July 1, 2025
This book flips the usual narrative, Iran’s not just lashing out, it’s playing a long game.
The author shows how Iran’s strategy is all about survival, shaped by war, isolation, and deep mistrust of the West. It’s not chaos—it’s calculated.
The writing’s sharp, easy to follow, and actually helps make sense of what Iran’s doing on the world stage.
Bottom line: Super relevant if you want to really understand what’s going on in the Middle East.
The author shows how Iran’s strategy is all about survival, shaped by war, isolation, and deep mistrust of the West. It’s not chaos—it’s calculated.
The writing’s sharp, easy to follow, and actually helps make sense of what Iran’s doing on the world stage.
Bottom line: Super relevant if you want to really understand what’s going on in the Middle East.
June 30, 2025
Tempting to summarise Iran’s recent political history as:
1950s: Mossadegh coup
1960s: Economic growth, social opening, political authoritarianism
1970s: Unrest & revolution
1980s: Iraq war
1990s: Reformists vs Conservatives
2000s: Challenge & opportunity of US invasion of Iraq
2010s: Peak of Iran’s regional axis
2020s: Unravelling of the axis?
1950s: Mossadegh coup
1960s: Economic growth, social opening, political authoritarianism
1970s: Unrest & revolution
1980s: Iraq war
1990s: Reformists vs Conservatives
2000s: Challenge & opportunity of US invasion of Iraq
2010s: Peak of Iran’s regional axis
2020s: Unravelling of the axis?
September 11, 2025
I would consider this book to be an excellent primer on understanding Iran's geopolitical position in the modern world and their motivations behind their strategy in the Middle East. Understanding how Iran views itself vis a vis its neighbors and the wider world is crucial to acquiring a more nuanced view on the subject.
November 3, 2025
Insightful look into aspects of modern Iranian policy but a lot more limited in scope than O thought it would be given the title. I would've liked historical and cultural aspects to be addressed in particular.
July 7, 2025
I thought it answered quite a few questions about Iran’s behavior.
July 10, 2025
Very informative and timely; Nasr lays out the various elements of Iranian political history from the past fifty years and informs the reader of the larger picture modern Iranian grand strategy.
July 31, 2025
تحليل عميق للنخبة السياسية الحاكمة في إيران، استمتعت بقراءة الكتاب وفي انتظار نسخته العربية.
August 14, 2025
الكتاب ويسرد الاحداث بالتسلسل السهل الممتع ويجعل المتلقي يحصل على فكرة لا باس بها عن الاحداث التي جرت والتي ممكن ان تحصل
August 17, 2025
Excellent review of modern Iran up to present day. Fascinating!
September 30, 2025
Really interesting and well written. If only Americans would read it.
October 12, 2025
بالنسبة لشخص مهتم بالجمهورية الإسلامية، لا يأتي الكتاب بالكثير. لكن لغير المهتمين هذا كتاب ممتاز، مكتوب طريقة سهلة وسرد تاريخي -ربما استفدت منه اكثر من غيري- رائع.
October 14, 2025
My history/IR 2025 book of the year.
November 1, 2025
I listened to this on Spotify. I am not generally a good listener so I am using audiobooks as a way to learn focus. Plus it was free and got great reviews in Foreign Affairs! I enjoyed it, it was really helpful in understanding the middle east, especially right now. It was written pretty recently so there was commentary on Israel's Gaza war. I was looking for a basic timeline of causes and impacts Iranian revolution and this was a really great first read.
I really liked that the narrator was a native speaker so all the names and places were said correctly. Although, I think my visual understanding of names is better (even if I am mentally saying them 100% wrong) for recall than hearing, so sometimes I would get a little confused. I kind of wish I could sight read along with the audio.
I really liked that the narrator was a native speaker so all the names and places were said correctly. Although, I think my visual understanding of names is better (even if I am mentally saying them 100% wrong) for recall than hearing, so sometimes I would get a little confused. I kind of wish I could sight read along with the audio.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 32 reviews