Labirinto Iran. Ipotesi di pace e di guerra

by Kenneth M. Pollack, Cristina Cavalli (Translator)

In his highly influential book The Threatening Storm, bestselling author Kenneth Pollack both informed and defined the national debate about Iraq. Now, in The Persian Puzzle, published to coincide with the twenty-fifth anniversary of the Iran hostage crisis, he examines the behind-the-scenes story of the tumultuous relationship between Iran and the United States, and weighs options for the future.

Here Pollack, a former CIA analyst and National Security Council official, brings his keen analysis and insider perspective to the long and ongoing clash between the United States and Iran, beginning with the fall of the shah and the seizure of the American embassy in Tehran in 1979. Pollack examines all the major events in U.S.-Iran relations–including the hostage crisis, the U.S. tilt toward Iraq during the Iran-Iraq war, the Iran-Contra scandal, American-Iranian military tensions in 1987 and 1988, the covert Iranian war against U.S. interests in the Persian Gulf that culminated in the 1996 Khobar Towers terrorist attack in Saudi Arabia, and recent U.S.-Iran skirmishes over Afghanistan and Iraq.

He explains the strategies and motives from American and Iranian perspectives and tells how each crisis colored the thinking of both countries’ leadership as they shaped and reshaped their policies over time. Pollack also describes efforts by moderates of various stripes to try to find some way past animosities to create a new dynamic in Iranian-American relations, only to find that when one side was ready for such a step, the other side fell short.

With balanced tone and insight, Pollack explains how the United States and Iran reached this impasse; why this relationship is critical to regional, global, and U.S. interests; and what basic political choices are available as we deal with this important but deeply troubled country.


From the Hardcover edition.

Genres: History, Iran, Nonfiction, Middle East, Politics, Religion, International Relations

328 pages, Paperback

First published November 2, 2004

Reviews

[Catherine · Rating 4 out of 5]

Phew. This is no light reading.
After reading All the Shah's Men by Stephen Kinzer (about the CIA's coup of Iranian elected leader Mohammad Mossadegh in 1953), I wanted to understand more about the Iranian-American conflict from that time until the present. He provides an overview of Iran's history up through the Pahlavi dynasty including WWII and how the stage was set for Iran to be an important pawn in the Cold War. But most of his focus is on the relationship between the two countries, between the late 1970's and the 2000's. The book was dense with information regarding the hostage situations during Regan's administration (after the "Iran Hostage Crisis") and how US's reaction helped to embolden Iran, why unilateral sanctions have failed to change Iran's behavior, Iran's chronic paranoia that the US will invade and how that has driven some of their more aggressive actions, the Iran-Iraq war, as well as the US's role in attempts to dissuade Iran from obtaining nuclear capability. Kinzer was previously the director for Gulf Affairs at the National Security Council and a military analyst for the CIA, and clearly is familiar not only with USA's foreign policy, but also with Iran and political atmosphere.

He has no easy answers, although at the end of the book he gives his three-pronged recommendation on how the US should deal with Iran, especially considering they have made great strides in obtaining nuclear weapons.

[Bethany · Rating 3 out of 5]

Great book with fantastic information, but very dry and hard to get through.

[David Harris · Rating 5 out of 5]

I consider myself to be reasonably well informed about the Middle East since I have lived in three Arab countries and have both Arabic and Persian language skills. I'm not a big fan of what I perceive to be a history of American and European bungling in that and other regions of the globe, but this book gave me a lot more balanced perspective on the history of Iran and the West than I had previously had.

This review is a quick recap of what I came away with after having read the book. But you need to read the book yourself to get the real gist of it. And, if you disagree with some of my thoughts below, I think you will find that there is evidence in the book to back up all or most of them.

Certainly, Iran has many valid grievances against both Britain and Russia who, for many years leading up through the Second World War, manipulated and took horrible advantage of Iran both politically and economically. For example, they put into power the first Pahlavi shah and divided up the country's oil reserves between themselves and wrote up one-sided contracts which assigned miniscule percentages of the oil revenues to the country. Yet Russia and Britain enjoy diplomatic relations with Iran and have for decades while America has been maligned and excoriated ever since the beginning of the revolution when our citizens were taken hostage and held for well over a year without due process.

When Mohammed Mosaddeq was deposed in 1953, it's true that the CIA was involved. However Britain, which has never publicly acknowledged its own role in this incident, was the primary beneficiary of the deed.

That said, it is estimated that between 300 and 800 people were killed as a result of the coup, so America and Britain need to step up and take responsibility for that. Yes, it is an outrage that Iran was behind bombings in Lebanon and Saudi Arabia during the '80s and '90s which killed hundreds of Americans. And, yes, Iran was behind kidnappings, murders and other heinous crimes outside its borders during that same time. But that doesn't change the fact that we, as Americans and Britons, have a responsibility to call our own governments to account for our crimes against Iranians.

In fact, given that Iran and the West have many goals in common, it seems like a good first step forward would be to mutually acknowledge shared responsibility for these past misdeeds and use the momentum from that effort to start pushing for reconciliation.

Another similarity between Iran and the US is that democracy has been subverted at the hands of powerful people in both countries who are determined to push their own agenda on a largely unwilling public. I believe groups in both countries could generate international goodwill by coming together to discuss this shared problem and how to solve it in a way which would benefit both countries.

The book points out that Truman and Kennedy pushed the shah to undertake important reforms to rein in poverty and push education in the rural areas. Britain and Russia had never done any such thing. With the assassination of Kennedy, Johnson continued these programs. But Nixon and, earlier, Eisenhower had never been particularly interested in Iran and took no great efforts to learn much about it, and they did not push the shah to improve the lot of Iranians. Consequently, the shah took horrible advantage of his countrymen and was able to pin a lot of the blame on America because we were his closest ally yet knew little about what was going on in his country.

This shah who, like his father, was also installed with the help of outsiders, was a horrible dictator, and Iranians had every right to despise him for his brutal secret police, SAVAK, and for his refusal to allow virtually any democratic speech or activity in the country. His White Revolution was a halfhearted attempt at land reform, and it made enemies out of the landed gentry, who were probably his only real fans ever.

He was evidently very jealous of JFK and tried to project the image of a young, successful leader, but his lavish palaces and his family's expensive trips abroad did not particularly endear him to his subjects.

When Carter came along, his administration likewise didn't put a lot of effort into understanding Iran, and they got America into a lot of trouble by just assuming that the shah was doing good things for the country while continuing to work with him.

Meanwhile, Khomeini, who was obsessed with maligning America specifically despite the fact that Britain and Russia were the primary villains throughout the modern history of Iran's relationship with the West, was happy to let out-of-control agitators take over the US Embassy and hold 52 people hostage for over a year shortly after his ascension to the new position of supreme leader in the new revolutionary government. Which, of course, ultimately led to the cutting off of relations between the two countries.

Khomeini was particularly proud of himself for influencing the outcome of the American elections by holding the hostages over Carter's head, thereby ensuring that Ronald Reagan ousted Carter. Good for him. If he thought that Reagan and the Republicans were going to be easier for Iran to work with, he was obviously a fool.

While it's true that Sunni Muslims have treated Shi'ites mostly horribly throughout the history of Islam, it's sad to note that the recent rise of ever uglier and uglier Sunni terrorists movements has at least some of its roots in Khomeini and the early days of the Shi'ite Islamic Republic when he was training suicide bombers and dispatching terrorist squads to Lebanon and Israel and the occupied territories and, later, to Saudi Arabia. I suspect that Iranian leaders today realize what a shortsighted strategy that was given the out-of-control violence against Shi'ites in Iraq today.

Moreover the repressive rules imposed on Iranians since the beginning of the Islamic revolution are likewise a forerunner of totalitarian groups like da'esh today. In fact, some consider Khomeini's rule as a Sunnification of the Shi'ite clergy. And some prominent Shi'ite clerics in Iraq vociferously opposed Khomeini's religious innovation of velayæt-e feqih, believing instead that the role of clerics was purely an advisory role and that they should not ever rule or reign politically.

One frustrating theme that is repeated throughout the book is the shortsightedness of Europe and Japan in continuing to trade with Iran when it was clear that its bad behavior was spilling across international borders and threatening to create disorder or even destabilize certain regions. And, no matter how you might feel about Israel, there's certainly nothing constructive about Iran's efforts to derail the peace process at every stage.

A number of reviews here have suggested that the final chapter is out of date now. I disagree. In the wake of the nuclear accord that has recently passed, lots of questions remain about what will happen in the future if/when Iran eventually has the capability to build a nuclear weapon. I believe that chapter offers a lot of thoughtful ideas for how the world can work against that scenario but, if it should come to pass, deal with it sensibly.

I'm sorry that my review comes across as fairly blatantly pro-American. As I tried to point out above, I'm perfectly aware that both America and Europe have done plenty to create havoc in that part of the world. One obvious example is that we continue to prop up a corrupt Saudi Arabian regime given their hostile treatment of their minorities and their women and their very thinly veiled hatred of us. And I believe our history of almost unconditional support for Israel has created an untenable situation for that country and for the Palestinians, whose destiny is closely connected with Israel's own. But I think we have a lot to offer Iran and the Arab World in terms of ideas for how to increase the personal liberties of the citizens of those countries.

[Nate Cooley · Rating 4 out of 5]

Kenneth Pollack's "The Persian Puzzle" is probably the best and most comprehensive analysis of the Iran that has received mainstream and widespread acclaim.

Pollock, known for his prior unabashed support of an Iraqi invasion ("The threatening Storm"), has followed up that work with his most recent book. At the outset, in outlining a strategy for dealing with Iran, it is important to note that the author has shied away from his previously hawkish outlook with regard to Iraq. Whether he is gunshy (literally) because of positions he previously advocated or whether he truly believes that the decision to use force against Iran deserves considerably more caution is not quite clear. Nevertheless, I completely enjoyed his book and appreciated his research.

In my opinion, Pollock is undoubtedly one of the seminal writers and policy-wonks with regard to the Middle East. His analysis of Iran, especially its history, and his compact description of how the United States found itself where it stands today is incredibly focused and prescient.

Particularly, Pollock masterfully outlines both the overthrow of the Shah, Mohammed Mossadegh, in 1953 and more particularly the subsequent Iranian Revolution initiated in 1978. In describing these events, the author focuses specifically on America's involvment in each episode and more importantly the Iranian's contempt for America with regard to each incident. From an Iranian perspective, these two events seem contradictory. In 1953, the United States along with Britain ousted someone who was perceived as a dictatorial leader un-receptive to classical liberal ideals ostensibly sweeping the globe (Huntington's "Second Wave"). Then, in somewhat contradictory fashion, in the late-1970's, Iranian elites cracked down on liberalization thus allowing Ayatollah Khomeini to assume the position of Supreme Leader and impose revolutionary Islamic rule. Though these incidents seem at odds from an Iranian perspective, Pollock ellucidates one constant that exposes itself throughout recent Iranian history: Contempt for the United States brought on by the Iranian perception that America has unnecessarily and repeatedly injected itself into Iranian internal affairs.

Pollock predictably points out (though somewhat more intelligently) that recent Iranian history is filled with examples of the Iranian government and thus society rapidly regressing while attempting to beat back the United States. With this framework in mind, Pollock outlines a number of policy options ("Tracks") with which the United States is currently faced: (1) hold open the prospect of the 'grand bargain' (Iran abandoning its support for terrorism and nuclear weapons in exchange for the U.S. lifting unilateral sanctions and normalizing relations with Tehran); (2) a true carrot-and-stick approach; and/or (3) preparing for a new containment regime.

In outlining the potential strategies for delaing with Iran, Pollock seemingly concludes that any policy, in and of itself, is a Catch-22. Though trite-sounding, the ball has been in the Iranian court for decades, yet they have refused to return service as a result of their helter-skelter recent history. The problem with any Washington policy implemented with regard to Iran is not the details of the policy itself, but the problem is seemingly the actual presence of any policy in and of itself.

[Shawn · Rating 3 out of 5]

Pollack's first book, the best-selling The Threatening Storm, was released in the run-up to Operation Iraqi Freedom, and instantly made waves as the moderate Democratic case for war against Saddam Hussein's Iraq. Never mind that Pollack, during his tenure as Director of Persian Gulf Affairs in President Bill Clinton's National Security Council, had played a central role in formulating the policies and official positions that resulted in the weakened sanctions regime he would later lambaste in his private capacity. He became an instant celebrity, appearing frequently on the talk show circuit and in the book review pages of leading papers and scholarly journals. Timing, as they say, is everything.

Pollack's follow-up endeavor, The Persian Puzzle, is similarly prescient. The Islamic Republic of Iran, now steadily marching toward an offensive nuclear capability, represents the next big foreign policy challenge for the Bush administration—and a pivotal turning point in the War on Terror. How the United States chooses to tackle Iran's strategic advances in the Persian Gulf, Central Asia and the Caucasus will go a long way toward determining the success or failure of long-term American strategy in those regions.

Pollack begins his assessment in antiquity. His sweeping, rapid-fire account of Iran's serpentine history—from the rise of the Safavids to the turbulent politics of the late 19th Century to the rise of Reza Khan—is definitive, and should be studied by students of Middle Eastern history everywhere. His detailed personal portrait of Iran's last pro-American leader, the Shah Mohammed Reza Pahlavi, is equally insightful, providing a realistic measure of a man torn between competing impulses: the desperate need to be loved by his subjects, and the need for strong, sometimes draconian, measures in order to weather the intrigue and great power politics that typified the Cold War in the Middle East.

[Patrick Farrell · Rating 5 out of 5]

I thought this book was fantastic. It laid out the history of U.S.-Iranian relations over the past 60 or so years. The basic premise that the author presented was that constructive relations are difficult between the two countries because of massive paranoia mixed with an ignorance of American policy towards Iran and others in the Middle East on the Iranian side coupled with a certain level of indifference to Iran on America's side.

Pollack also wrote an outstanding conclusion that offers several tracks forward that were both pragmatic and effective, but even he comes to the conclusion that these actions won't, and likely can't, be taken while the current conservative/hard-line regime is in charge in Iran and the doesn't seem to be much the United States can do to speed up the process of regime change (any military actions would make our Iraq excursions look like Tiddlywinks). All this leads one to believe that the best course of action is containment (which is unpopular with wide swaths of the population).

This is an important work on an interesting and mystifying region and the current situation on the ground in Iran only makes it more so.

[Phil · Rating 2 out of 5]

Prior to writing this book, Pollack wrote "The Threatening Storm: The Case for Invading Iraq." This book should have been subtitled "The Case for Not Invading Iran." It provides excellent background on the history of U.S.-Iranian relations, getting into the gritty details of energy interests, resource nationalization, the Iran-Iraq war, and present political maneuvering. Thankfully, it goes beyond the simplistic "Shah goes away, Mossadeq elected, Mossadeq thrown out, Shah comes back, Shah falls, islamists take over, U.S. Embassy sacked, hostages taken, Reagan sworn in, hostages released, things suck for the foreseeable future."

Although all it's good for clear, readable, general background, Pollack should really have made more of a point than "U.S.-Iranian relations...what can I say...they're complicated." Yeah, Ken, I'm guessing that's why it's the Persian PUZZLE. Because it's a PUZZLE. Get it? A puzzle.

A good read for background. Has an extensive bibliography, which is good for more in-depth follow-up reading. The maps are kind of neat.

[Ryan · Rating 3 out of 5]

A brief history of the various issues between Iran and the United States over the years. The author has a lot of knowledge of Iranian politics and history, even though he admits he's never been to Iran himself. However, the book is not really about Iranian culture, but about the diplomatic back-and-forth between the Islamic Republic and America: The 1953 Mosaddeq coup, the 1979 Revolution, the hostage crisis, the Beirut bombing, Hizbollah, the Iran-Iraq War, Iran Air Flight 655, the Karine A, Khatami's election, the Afghan war, and on and on. A good introduction to some of the issues on the world stage right now.

[Grindy Stone · Rating 4 out of 5]

A top-notch primer on Iranian history and the country's relation with the United States, though the part that genuinely sizzles is the first 200 pages, ending with the death of the Ayatollah Khomeini. The Ayatollah is the pivotal figure in the history of the two countries, and is a good example of the author's thesis that neither country understands the other. For such a pivotal historical figure, he was never more than a caricature in the US.

[Roland · Rating 4 out of 5]

Good introduction to the history of US/western and Persian relations. Allows one to see how foreign policy scholars actually think. Many of his proposals for dealing with Iran are slightly outdated, and I think that he would take a slightly more hawkish approach if the book took recent events into account.

[Paula · Rating 5 out of 5]

This is this most authoritative book I’ve read on the history of Persia and US relations with modern day Iran. I rely upon it while teaching graduate students at Georgetown University and in my own research. I highly recommend it.

[Ryan Lyppens · Rating 4 out of 5]

This was really comprehensive, going in-depth on the 1953 coup against Mossadeq, the reign of the shah, the 1979 revolution, the hostage crisis, the Iran-Iraq war, the Rushdie fatwa, involvement with Hezbollah, and the election of Katami (plus the failed hope at tangible, lasting reform). Given that Pollack was one of the directors of the NSC for the Clinton administration, this book was remarkably balanced (even self-critical at times) on the successes and failures of the US when dealing with Iran.

[Bradley Pollard · Rating 5 out of 5]

Absolutely amazing book! If I have one regret, it’s that I read this book 21 years too late (it was published in 2004). What I need now is for Pollack to publish the sequel—what has happened in the intervening years and how does the current strategy against Iran hold up against the strategies he espoused in this book?

I’ll warn you, this is a dense read, but well worth it, even 21 years after publication. It’s a great dive into the interactions between Iran and the U.S. and some of the unforced errors each side made over the years.

[Roy McCullough · Rating 4 out of 5]

Overall, A useful and informative read but the writing is a bit inconsistent / informal at times and would have benefitted from better editing. With that said, the book is still highly recommended for anyone seeking an introduction to the fraught history and relationship between these two countries. Also, the book was published twenty years ago. A lot has happened since then and an updated / revised version would be welcome.

[Marie McFalls · Rating 4 out of 5]

Writing was a bit dense for my current comprehension of the subject, that being said Pollack is a very clear writer and tries to make the subject approachable. Comprehensive view from ancient times to focus on the 20th century

[Bennett · Rating 4 out of 5]

You will learn a lot about Iran and U.S. relations but it will be a grind.

[David Thiedig · Rating 3 out of 5]

3.5

[Michael Ginsberg · Rating 4 out of 5]

A must-read for anyone who wants to understand the complex relationship between the US and Iran, and the animating principles behind Iran's foreign policy, and where things go from here.

[Mark · Rating 5 out of 5]

Very well done and informative.

[Taylor Hennig · Rating 4 out of 5]

Super informative. Needed an editor.

[Jonah Black · Rating 4 out of 5]

A difficult read at points, due to the sheer amount of information being conveyed. But well-crafted, and important historical context for the current global climate.

[Red Fox · Rating 4 out of 5]

Pollack tries to provide a balanced account of why it is so difficult for the U.S. and Iran to come to better terms when a better relationship seems so beneficial to both.

The Iranians remember the Persian empires, and their goals focus on a state without foreign influence.

Pollack claims that Truman "did all he could to save Mosaddeq from himself" but the latter could not decide what he wanted to be. Eventually the departure of Mosaddeq was sealed - U.S. involvement just hastened it, and in aftermath U.S. did push the Shah for reforms.

After the Iranian Revolution, it was unclear what would happen, so U.S. waited, and hoped, for a better outcome.

[Emily · Rating 4 out of 5]

Incredibly enlightening - well written and easy to follow. The novel gives a history of American relations with Iran and clearly explains the convoluted perspectives of each country regarding the other. The author gets into the specifics of how each American president dealt with Iran such as the ways some pretty much ignored Iran (to our detriment) and others tried (sometimes in vain) to establish a better relationship. It helped me better understand the political structure of Iran and why current diplomacy with it is so challenging. Because of when it was written, it only goes up to President Khatami and does not address the current president, Ahmadinejad. At the end of the novel, Pollack discusses the different strategies that have been proposed regarding foreign relations with Iran and then lays out the path he thinks would be most effective. His biggest concern is clearly their acquisition/creation of nuclear weapons and feels that needs to be dealt with before encouraging another revolution to overthrow the current regime.

What I found most interesting was our treating Iran with more amiable terms after 9-11 because it is an enemy of the terrorist group that attacked us and Iran wanted our help to expel that terrorist group from Afghanistan. Though the country has at times tried to improve relations with the U.S. they are resolutely against Israel's attempt at a peace agreement with nations in the Middle East The news on Iran is now making much more sense!

Reading this novel has lead me to finally pick up Rushdie's The Satanic Verses because of the fatwa placed against him by Iran's shah Ayatollah Khomeini in 1989. So far, it reads a lot like his other novels and I am getting a little lost with the religious aspect of it.

[Jon · Rating 4 out of 5]

One of my professor's books on the history of US-Iranian relations, examining the internal and international historical-political issues that shaped the mutual antagonism between America and Iran since the early 1900s. Extensive detail is given to the schizophrenic Iranian historical attitude toward the outside world: although strongly convinced of the innate superiority of Persian culture against Arabism and Westernism, a century of imperial domination at the hands of the British and Russians--and now American regional hegemony--has created a paradoxical situation where Iran continually acts out of a sense of weakness and proclaims self-defense as a guiding logic of many of its policies. This is related to the fact that Iranian internal politics are divided among multiple factions, thus further complicating and obscuring the guiding logic behind Iranian policy in the Greater Middle East.

[JennyB · Rating 3 out of 5]

Iran is a fascinating topic to me, one that I return to again and again. Persian Puzzle is an authoritative examination of Iran's history and how it affects the country's current attitudes, Iran's twisted relations with the United States and what interactions made them that way, and what's the best to hope for (or worst to dread) in future between our two countries. Pollack is hugely knowledgeable on the topic, and this is, by consequence, very dense reading. The level of detail is probably too much for a first venture into this territory, but those who have at least the basic outline of Iran's history in their minds already will learn immensely from it. This is neither the most interesting or accessible book I've read on this topic, but I am glad I stuck with it for the month it took me to read it through to the end.

[Mark · Rating 5 out of 5]

This a fantastic book covering the historical events between Iran and the United States, up to 2004. It is an unbiased fact based book explaining the sources of the tensions between the countries. It's refreshing to hear about the overt and covert errors that the U.S. may have made in the past in dealing with Iran. It's much different than reading slanted news articles where the U.S. is always the good guy, or where publications are just out to bash a specific politition.

I think it is a great primer to understand current news events.

[Meepspeeps · Rating 3 out of 5]

I chose to read this book due to the current attempts by the USA to negotiate with Iran. The book convinced me once again that it is virtually impossible to negotiate with Iran. The best we can do is containment, including containment of their nuclear arsenal assuming they eventually develop one. This book is a good history of why anti-Americanism is so strong in Iran in particular. I think the book could have skipped some details and still gotten its main points across; the tedium of parts caused me to skim from time to time.

[Steph · Rating 3 out of 5]

I read this book in a Political Science class. The premise behind this book is to familiarize readers with the history of conflict between Iran and America dating back to the mid-20th century, not just beginning with the '79 Revolution as most people might think. The idea behind this historical context is to give perspective on the current conflict between Iran and America, and to offer solutions for how to move forward.

[Brian S. · Rating 4 out of 5]

This book gives you an understanding of the tension between Iran and the United States over the last 50 years. Both nations need to put the past in the past in order to achieve a reasonable future. However, Iran's very identity is based on being angry with the United States. If Iran were not geographically located where it is, I think the US would just ignore them for the most part.

Any student of the Middle East should add this to their reference library.

[Scott Martin · Rating 5 out of 5]

If you want a single book that describes the history between Iran and the US, this is it. While it was written in 2005 and a lot has changed since then (now that we are in 2010), the history is informative and explains how Iran went from one of our Middle East Pillars against Communism to major adversary. While you might find more detailed information from other sources, if you want one volume, this would be the one to have.