What do you think?
Rate this book
Which Path to Persia?: Options for a New American Strategy toward Iran
"
Crafting a new policy toward Iran is a complicated, uncertain, and perilous challenge. Since it is an extremely complex society, with an opaque political system, it is no wonder that the United States has not yet figured out the puzzle that is Iran. With the clock ticking on Iran's pursuit of nuclear capabilities, solving this puzzle is more urgent than ever. In Which Path to Persia? a group of experts with the Saban Center for Middle East Policy at Brookings lays out the courses of action available to the United States. What are the benefits and drawbacks of airstrikes? Can engagement be successful? Is regime change possible? In answering such questions, the authors do not argue for one approach over another. Instead, they present the details of the policies so that readers can understand the complexity of the challenge and decide for themselves which course the United States should take.
"
Crafting a new policy toward Iran is a complicated, uncertain, and perilous challenge. Since it is an extremely complex society, with an opaque political system, it is no wonder that the United States has not yet figured out the puzzle that is Iran. With the clock ticking on Iran's pursuit of nuclear capabilities, solving this puzzle is more urgent than ever. In Which Path to Persia? a group of experts with the Saban Center for Middle East Policy at Brookings lays out the courses of action available to the United States. What are the benefits and drawbacks of airstrikes? Can engagement be successful? Is regime change possible? In answering such questions, the authors do not argue for one approach over another. Instead, they present the details of the policies so that readers can understand the complexity of the challenge and decide for themselves which course the United States should take.
"
253 pages, Paperback
First published January 1, 2009
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 4 of 4 reviews
April 14, 2026
I read this to see if there is anything to learn about our current war in Iran. This was written back in 2009 so you would think it would be dated, but two things stick out. First, the complete lack of moral sense in presenting these options. There is no consideration of the devastating consequences of any of these options except insofar as it relates to what the writers believe to be the interests of America. By America's interests they mean how much power and control the government can wield Whether any normal person in America actually wants this or sees this as being in their interest is not relevant. They only matter insofar as they can be persuaded to support the government policy. The same is also true for every other country and their citizens especially Iran in this case. Completely psychotic at the highest level. Second, is the hubris when presenting these options. Certain things that ought not to be taken for granted are. Such as the fact that it explicitly says that in the case of a military action Iran has no capability to close the strait effectively since if it tried the navy could easily escort ships through anyway. Even if that was true back in 2009 it certainly isn't now, but nobody seems to have bothered updating the scenario to include Iran's large arsenal of missiles, drones, etc that they have now that they didn't have then. Overall, it was interesting to see how these people think and the fact that they publish these sorts of things is pretty wild. It's like they don't think or care that no normal person thinks in the same way.
April 9, 2026
A hate-read. As another review said, it’s “like stumbling into a supervillains conference and overhearing their plot.”
There’s obviously a ton of projection and lies throughout — but a little interesting to hear these enemies of humanity speak semi-openly about their plans.
There’s obviously a ton of projection and lies throughout — but a little interesting to hear these enemies of humanity speak semi-openly about their plans.
April 2, 2020
Okay, so the version of this I read was a shorter draft put out by Brookings and available online than the published book version but I feel like the points remain the same either way.
You’d think this book has become obsolete since it came out so long ago now, before the Arab Spring and Winter, before Libya, Syria, Yemen, the nuclear deal, the unraveling of the deal, and before the Trump War of 2020. But this book is a very good historical marker that shows just what the problems in thinking have been and will continue to be.
I would certainly file this book under “You do know that we can all hear what you’re saying, right?”
Because the kind of thinking out loud here which lays out how an administration might, for instance, support a coup or an insurgent group or tacitly support a third party air strike while maintaining plausible deniability begs the question: plausible for who? You do realize we can all read this book, right?
When it says that the US could encourage the media to run favorable stories about possible coup plotters or insurgents (i.e. terrorists) it raised the question of why these media outlets can ever be trusted?
When it outlines how one method of luring Iran into conflict might be to make a proposal that is just bad enough that Iran would have to refuse it but that it can be sold to the world as a reasonable proposal that was rejected it again raises the question as to why any negotiations could ever be conducted in good faith and also again: you do realize we can all hear you, right?
I know the authors think they are speaking to a certain audience of fellow hegemons who talk the same way about the world but I can’t help feeling like reading this text was a lot like stumbling into a supervillains conference and overhearing their plot.
Seriously, you know we can hear you, right?
You’d think this book has become obsolete since it came out so long ago now, before the Arab Spring and Winter, before Libya, Syria, Yemen, the nuclear deal, the unraveling of the deal, and before the Trump War of 2020. But this book is a very good historical marker that shows just what the problems in thinking have been and will continue to be.
I would certainly file this book under “You do know that we can all hear what you’re saying, right?”
Because the kind of thinking out loud here which lays out how an administration might, for instance, support a coup or an insurgent group or tacitly support a third party air strike while maintaining plausible deniability begs the question: plausible for who? You do realize we can all read this book, right?
When it says that the US could encourage the media to run favorable stories about possible coup plotters or insurgents (i.e. terrorists) it raised the question of why these media outlets can ever be trusted?
When it outlines how one method of luring Iran into conflict might be to make a proposal that is just bad enough that Iran would have to refuse it but that it can be sold to the world as a reasonable proposal that was rejected it again raises the question as to why any negotiations could ever be conducted in good faith and also again: you do realize we can all hear you, right?
I know the authors think they are speaking to a certain audience of fellow hegemons who talk the same way about the world but I can’t help feeling like reading this text was a lot like stumbling into a supervillains conference and overhearing their plot.
Seriously, you know we can hear you, right?
May 18, 2016
Good book, but no longer recommended — too much has changed.
This is a well-written text on Iran's place in the world and a number of possible responses the United States could take in response.
The difficulty is that the Middle East is a fast-changing region, and after only five years this no longer addresses some important contemporary issues.
For example:
• What does the surprising sweep of the reformist moderates in the election of Spring 2016 mean? Is this a temporary and tactical defeat of the conservative Islamist hardliners? Is it possible that some of the aging holy warriors of the revolutionary era are moderating their passion, as they see the suffering that extremism can cause? Does this provide an opening for the U.S. to pull Iran further along those lines?
• Like it or not, Iran is the most successful instance of a republican theocratic state, something most people probably thought would be a contradictory proposition. Iran is nowhere near eliminating the corruption of power politics, so the tensions between the religious and democratic aspects may never resolve. But if it is possible for Iran to evolve into a peaceful republican theocracy, that means a future Middle East could resolve the state-religion conflict in a way much different than the European Westphalian solution.
• Oil, the commodity that keeps the Arab monarchies wealthy, will someday run out. The emergency of climate change tells us we should stop using it even sooner, if we can muster the determination. In either case, what is holding those economies up won't be there anymore, and quite a few Gulf states have no real prospect for other revenues. Iran, while still getting much of its international trade revenue from petroleum and its derivatives, does have a substantially diversified economy. It might makes sense to "make nice" with the Middle Eastern nation that is most likely to survive the collapse of oil as a global commodity. For that matter, Iran should be looking into their crystal ball and seeing that future as very scary, with millions of neighbors dropping into poverty and seeking assistance.
This is a well-written text on Iran's place in the world and a number of possible responses the United States could take in response.
The difficulty is that the Middle East is a fast-changing region, and after only five years this no longer addresses some important contemporary issues.
For example:
• What does the surprising sweep of the reformist moderates in the election of Spring 2016 mean? Is this a temporary and tactical defeat of the conservative Islamist hardliners? Is it possible that some of the aging holy warriors of the revolutionary era are moderating their passion, as they see the suffering that extremism can cause? Does this provide an opening for the U.S. to pull Iran further along those lines?
• Like it or not, Iran is the most successful instance of a republican theocratic state, something most people probably thought would be a contradictory proposition. Iran is nowhere near eliminating the corruption of power politics, so the tensions between the religious and democratic aspects may never resolve. But if it is possible for Iran to evolve into a peaceful republican theocracy, that means a future Middle East could resolve the state-religion conflict in a way much different than the European Westphalian solution.
• Oil, the commodity that keeps the Arab monarchies wealthy, will someday run out. The emergency of climate change tells us we should stop using it even sooner, if we can muster the determination. In either case, what is holding those economies up won't be there anymore, and quite a few Gulf states have no real prospect for other revenues. Iran, while still getting much of its international trade revenue from petroleum and its derivatives, does have a substantially diversified economy. It might makes sense to "make nice" with the Middle Eastern nation that is most likely to survive the collapse of oil as a global commodity. For that matter, Iran should be looking into their crystal ball and seeing that future as very scary, with millions of neighbors dropping into poverty and seeking assistance.
Displaying 1 - 4 of 4 reviews