What do you think?
Rate this book
Reset: Iran, Turkey, and America's Future
The bestselling author of Overthrow offers a new and surprising vision for rebuilding America's strategic partnerships in the Middle East What can the United States do to help realize its dream of a peaceful, democratic Middle East? Stephen Kinzer offers a surprising answer in this paradigm-shifting book. Two countries in the region, he argues, are America's logical partners in the twenty-first Turkey and Iran. Besides proposing this new "power triangle," Kinzer also recommends that the United States reshape relations with its two traditional Middle East allies, Israel and Saudi Arabia. This book provides a penetrating, timely critique of America's approach to the world's most volatile region, and offers a startling alternative. Kinzer is a master storyteller with an eye for grand characters and illuminating historical detail. In this book he introduces us to larger-than-life figures, like a Nebraska schoolteacher who became a martyr to democracy in Iran, a Turkish radical who transformed his country and Islam forever, and a colorful parade of princes, politicians, women of the world, spies, oppressors, liberators, and dreamers. Kinzer's provocative new view of the Middle East is the rare book that will richly entertain while moving a vital policy debate beyond the stale alternatives of the last fifty years.
288 pages, Hardcover
First published June 8, 2010
43 people are currently reading
1051 people want to read
About the author
Stephen Kinzer
29 books770 followersStephen Kinzer is an award-winning foreign correspondent who has covered more than 50 countries on five continents. His articles and books have led the Washington Post to place him "among the best in popular foreign policy storytelling." (source)
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 69 reviews
July 29, 2013
Great book about American politics in the Middle East. Focusing especially on Turkey and Iran, Kinzer tells the history of Middle East in the 20th century.Stephen Kinzer is a very experienced journalist who has covered the region for New York Times. Starting in the 19th century and coming to 2010 he tells the story of Middle East and US. Israel and Saudi Arabia has been the main US allies in the the region since the WW2. Kinzer tells us how the world has changed and how US's policies and allies must change, too. Giving examples of American foreign policy failures in the region, Kinzer suggests Iran and Turkey should be US's main allies, because this two countries are the only ones with the democratic past and traditions.
It is a very easy book to read and great opportunity to start reading about Middle East. Kinzer has the rare talent of writing crystal clear about complicated issues.
It is a very easy book to read and great opportunity to start reading about Middle East. Kinzer has the rare talent of writing crystal clear about complicated issues.
November 8, 2014
Some have complained that though this is supposed to be about Turkey and Iran, it deviates (though not uninterestingly) into Israel and Saudi Arabia. My copy is a UK version which makes it clear that the objective is not just a discussion of Turkey and Iran, but a re-assessment of those two countries and why they are the best Middle-Eastern allies for the US, and why the traditional best friends of America, Israel and Saudi, are not.
Anyway it's mostly a straightforward and easily-digested narrative of the development of these four modern countries. I was principally interested in Turkey (partly because I work for a Gülen school, though no one there has actually mentioned that) and it does give a thorough and, as far as I can say, balanced account of Atatürk's achievements and shortcomings, continuing through the violent 60s-70s-80s, to the new moderate Islamicist (discuss...) regime under Erdoğan and Davutoğlu (up to the point of publication in 2011 when they were PM and FM respectively). While acknowledging the ongoing internal Turkish issues, regarding Kurds, freedom of the press, etc, Kinzer reckons that Turkey is confident, democratic and totally at the heart of everything in the Middle East, with a neo-Ottoman sphere of influence, and particularly as it doesn't seem to be getting anywhere with the EU:
Where, is the question. Turkey undoubtedly ploughs its own furrow. The EU-snub thing was a familiar idea to me and the distance between them seems to be growing, but not quite clear to me was Turkey's fairly overt interest in Mosul, now an ISIS stronghold but formerly the centre of an Ottoman Vilayet and the particular focus of Turkish economic colonisation of northern Iraq over the past decade or so. Kinzer concludes that Turkey is best placed to be America's ally and indeed agent in the Middle East, propping up Americans where 'they lack some of the historical and cultural tools necessary to navigate effectively.' (Duh.) But things are not that simple, or so it seems now at least; and as Kinzer points out Turkey's diplomatic class (and experience) is limited and not fully on message. Yesterday (7 Nov) for instance Erdoğan and (worse) Davutoğlu were both sounding off at Israel about the al-Aqsa mosque and the Turkish obligation to protect Jerusalem as entrusted to them by the Caliph and the Ottomans. Turkey has always been a mystery, which just gets deeper for me every day.
Meanwhile the Iranian sections are also good - the rise of the Pahlavi shahs, the US-scuppered Mossadegh democracy, the 1979 revolution and onward, with plenty of colour and anecdote. His conclusion, though, that Iran is at heart a democratic country, isn't quite proven; the early (1906) revolutions, Mossadegh before he was sabotaged by Kermit Roosevelt, demonstrations in 2009.... is that enough?
So he contends that the US should rely on Turkey, support revolution in Iran, step away from Saudi and let it make its own much-need reform (and he's interestingly scathing about the deal struck between the hardline Wahhabis and the loose-living Saudi princes), and most boldly, step in and impose peace between Israel and Palestine. Just impose it. Just like that. He tempers this, and the other recommendations, with caveats about how this group and that and the American people are unlikely to accept all of this and therefore just nudging policy in this direction would be something. It seems that the EU has no further role to play, incidentally.
Kinzer is obviously very well informed. I can't quite accept his proposals either, at least not in the light of all that happened in 2014, but I recommend his concise and readable background to the issues.
Anyway it's mostly a straightforward and easily-digested narrative of the development of these four modern countries. I was principally interested in Turkey (partly because I work for a Gülen school, though no one there has actually mentioned that) and it does give a thorough and, as far as I can say, balanced account of Atatürk's achievements and shortcomings, continuing through the violent 60s-70s-80s, to the new moderate Islamicist (discuss...) regime under Erdoğan and Davutoğlu (up to the point of publication in 2011 when they were PM and FM respectively). While acknowledging the ongoing internal Turkish issues, regarding Kurds, freedom of the press, etc, Kinzer reckons that Turkey is confident, democratic and totally at the heart of everything in the Middle East, with a neo-Ottoman sphere of influence, and particularly as it doesn't seem to be getting anywhere with the EU:
Europe is slamming its door in Turkey's face. Turkey, a proud country that does not react well to insults, is responding by seeking friends elsewhere.
Where, is the question. Turkey undoubtedly ploughs its own furrow. The EU-snub thing was a familiar idea to me and the distance between them seems to be growing, but not quite clear to me was Turkey's fairly overt interest in Mosul, now an ISIS stronghold but formerly the centre of an Ottoman Vilayet and the particular focus of Turkish economic colonisation of northern Iraq over the past decade or so. Kinzer concludes that Turkey is best placed to be America's ally and indeed agent in the Middle East, propping up Americans where 'they lack some of the historical and cultural tools necessary to navigate effectively.' (Duh.) But things are not that simple, or so it seems now at least; and as Kinzer points out Turkey's diplomatic class (and experience) is limited and not fully on message. Yesterday (7 Nov) for instance Erdoğan and (worse) Davutoğlu were both sounding off at Israel about the al-Aqsa mosque and the Turkish obligation to protect Jerusalem as entrusted to them by the Caliph and the Ottomans. Turkey has always been a mystery, which just gets deeper for me every day.
Meanwhile the Iranian sections are also good - the rise of the Pahlavi shahs, the US-scuppered Mossadegh democracy, the 1979 revolution and onward, with plenty of colour and anecdote. His conclusion, though, that Iran is at heart a democratic country, isn't quite proven; the early (1906) revolutions, Mossadegh before he was sabotaged by Kermit Roosevelt, demonstrations in 2009.... is that enough?
So he contends that the US should rely on Turkey, support revolution in Iran, step away from Saudi and let it make its own much-need reform (and he's interestingly scathing about the deal struck between the hardline Wahhabis and the loose-living Saudi princes), and most boldly, step in and impose peace between Israel and Palestine. Just impose it. Just like that. He tempers this, and the other recommendations, with caveats about how this group and that and the American people are unlikely to accept all of this and therefore just nudging policy in this direction would be something. It seems that the EU has no further role to play, incidentally.
Kinzer is obviously very well informed. I can't quite accept his proposals either, at least not in the light of all that happened in 2014, but I recommend his concise and readable background to the issues.
September 7, 2020
İran, Türkiye, Suudi Arabistan ve Amerika ekseninde Ortadoğu'ya genel bir bakış.
İran’ın Baskerville ile başlayan Demokrasi mücadelesi ve devamı.
Türkiye Cumhuriyet öncesi ve sonrası tarihi detaylar.
Atatürk ve Kurtuluş savaşı yılları.
Britanya’nın İran şahına olan desteği.
Roosevelt ve İbni Suudi’nin ortaklaşa anlaşması.
Amerikan desteği ile İsrail’in kuruluşu.
Suudi Arabistan'ın bölgede silahlanması.
Kitap tarihi güzel bilgiler mevcut.
İran’ın Baskerville ile başlayan Demokrasi mücadelesi ve devamı.
Türkiye Cumhuriyet öncesi ve sonrası tarihi detaylar.
Atatürk ve Kurtuluş savaşı yılları.
Britanya’nın İran şahına olan desteği.
Roosevelt ve İbni Suudi’nin ortaklaşa anlaşması.
Amerikan desteği ile İsrail’in kuruluşu.
Suudi Arabistan'ın bölgede silahlanması.
Kitap tarihi güzel bilgiler mevcut.
June 16, 2017
Published only 7 years ago (as of mid 2017), it is already outdated because of missing historical events, such as the rise of the Erdogan dictatorship, Rouhani and the nuclear deal, the Arab spring and its relative failure (which at least undermines the author's claim as to the nonexistence of a desire for democracy among Arabs), its insufficient cursory mention of the Green movement and finally, having missed the refugee crisis and the rise of right wing extremism in the West.
It is still a pleasant read, especially the length coverage given to the story of the two great dictator reformers, Mustafa Kemal Atatürk and Reza Shah Pahlavi.
It is still a pleasant read, especially the length coverage given to the story of the two great dictator reformers, Mustafa Kemal Atatürk and Reza Shah Pahlavi.
October 27, 2020
Kinzer looks at the actual similarities in values and institutions between nations, and sees beyond past alliances of convenience or inherited prejudices. He examines the potential of friendship between nations previously divided more by verbal rhetoric than by any actually conflicting goals. I think it's a vision that will come: real friendship between Turkey and Iran.
Read
January 3, 2022The author's thesis, that the U.S. should ally with democracies, misses the point. The U.S. doesn't give a fig about democracy. The U.S. /says/ it wants democracy. It is a /lie/. The U.S. has overthrown many governments that represented and worked for their people, to set up brutal, kleptocratic dictatorships that represent, and work for, U.S. corporate hegemony.
September 2, 2016
Reset offered a new way for me to look at the Middle East. The book makes an argument that partnering with Turkey and Iran makes the most sense for helping to achieve a peaceful solution to the challenges in that area. Stephen Kinzer suggests that we also revisit and reshape our relationships with Saudi Arabia and Israel. The premise of all of this is based on the history of Turkey and Iran and the connections and progressive nature of their peoples to the notions of popular uprisings, gender-equality and the lust for a democratic form of government.
The biggest part of the book is an historical rendition. While I thoroughly enjoyed that I do not know how correct or unbiased it might have been. It does not really matter. Peace in that part of the world is obviously of paramount importance. Actually, peace in every part of the world is of paramount importance and whatever crazy and speculative scheme that might pull that off works for me.
The book was well-written and engaging. It pretty well sums up how things got to be the way they are in the Middle East. Whether leaders of the world are bold enough to attempt a radical paradigm shift to bring about peace is... well something we can all at least hope for. What we’ve done for the last half century certainly isn’t working.
I'd recommend this book for anyone interested in the history of that part of the world or maybe just for anyone interested in the world in general.
The biggest part of the book is an historical rendition. While I thoroughly enjoyed that I do not know how correct or unbiased it might have been. It does not really matter. Peace in that part of the world is obviously of paramount importance. Actually, peace in every part of the world is of paramount importance and whatever crazy and speculative scheme that might pull that off works for me.
The book was well-written and engaging. It pretty well sums up how things got to be the way they are in the Middle East. Whether leaders of the world are bold enough to attempt a radical paradigm shift to bring about peace is... well something we can all at least hope for. What we’ve done for the last half century certainly isn’t working.
I'd recommend this book for anyone interested in the history of that part of the world or maybe just for anyone interested in the world in general.
November 3, 2013
Nice unvarnished 20th-century history of Turkey and Iran. Then there's chapters on post World War II history of Saudi Arabia, Israel and the United States. He paints a picture of the United States foreign-policy and how interdependent the United states was/is with Israel and then Saudi Arabia. I really enjoyed and learned a lot from these chapters. I found the final chapters on future United States foreign-policy to be convoluted and not interesting.
Pretty easy and entertaining read, though.
Pretty easy and entertaining read, though.
May 23, 2015
To say Kinzer is mistaken in his assessment of Turkey's ruling party would have been putting it mildly when this book came out in 2010. At this point (2015), it reads as less credible and more delusional than, say, Dennis Rodman's assessment of Kim Jong Un. This book should either be updated and reissued or viewed as a sad artifact of how thoroughly and blindly some western journalists and pundits fell for the ruling party's lies during their first decade-ish of misrule.
April 1, 2017
3 stars [International Studies]
Writing: 3.5, Use: 3, Truth 3.
Seemed at first to be an above average thesis. After stating his thesis briefly at the beginning, Kinzer proceeds to give a short political history of Turkey and Iran as it pertains to their striving toward Democracy. The writing is rather impressive. Usually a work of this attitude is filled with noticeable anti-establishment buzzwords and phrases. However, Kinzer either does not hold these beliefs or is careful not to use these words that betray an uncritical liberalism or anti-establishment, anti-status quo foreign policy.
By the time he recounts the Mossadegh overthrow in 1953, one is beginning to wonder how America could have been so stupid. Rather, that doesn’t happen until he recounts the post-9/11 thawing actions of Iran, which were suddenly squelched with George W. Bush’s Axis of Evil comment. At the time I was a conservative and had not yet come to grips with W.’s fiscal liberalism, but his remark seemed to be reasonable due to the Islamic regime in Iran, its agitating, and its backing of terrorism abroad. However, this book puts in a timeline which makes it seem extremely foolish.
The history of Turkey and Iran on their acquisition, and later, their fights for, Democracy, in the face of external and internal forces is an amazing history, especially for the American who knows little about either country, and it presents a compelling case that Turkey and Iran are two of the better friends that America could hope for in Western Asia.
The history of Israeli arms support to Guatemala and El Salvador was something I had never heard. In Guatemala, the book reports that 180,000 largely unarmed peasants were liquidated as part of a supposed anti-Communist purge. One might need to investigate the other side of this equation to see if it was that simple.
When Kinzey starts getting down to brass tacks as to what the U.S. should do, his solutions are not quite as strong as I thought they could be. First, he talks about the House of Bush and the House of Saud as given in a book by Craig Unger. Then, he gives as one of his first examples a misconception, when W. held the king of Saudi Arabia’s hand when he came to Texas, this did not, as Kinzer supposed, show some especially intimate relationship. This is a common act in the Middle East. Common friends—i.e., friends are always more than common in the ME—all hold hands. So for Kinzey to not understand this ME custom and to ascribe this special meaning to it when there was none, didn’t bode well for his understanding of the culture.
To foreign policy, he was fair about not cutting ties with Saudi and Israel for many good reasons, he then unfortunately went on to be vague about U.S. mistakes in the Cold War, giving no specific examples.
“Land for Peace” was offered as the common sense solution for the I-P question. More than naïve, it is patently false. Israel has done this, and they did not get peace. 98% of ’67 borders rejected.
The “de-coupled” alliance with Turkey, however, did seem sound.
In the end, the political histories of Turkey and Iran, as well as the forming of the U.S.-Saudi relationship, was interesting. However, Kinzer’s foreign policy recommendations were perhaps simplistic, if not reasonable. Recommended to those interested in foreign policy, or to the American who has an unexamined bias towards the Middle East.
Writing: 3.5, Use: 3, Truth 3.
Seemed at first to be an above average thesis. After stating his thesis briefly at the beginning, Kinzer proceeds to give a short political history of Turkey and Iran as it pertains to their striving toward Democracy. The writing is rather impressive. Usually a work of this attitude is filled with noticeable anti-establishment buzzwords and phrases. However, Kinzer either does not hold these beliefs or is careful not to use these words that betray an uncritical liberalism or anti-establishment, anti-status quo foreign policy.
By the time he recounts the Mossadegh overthrow in 1953, one is beginning to wonder how America could have been so stupid. Rather, that doesn’t happen until he recounts the post-9/11 thawing actions of Iran, which were suddenly squelched with George W. Bush’s Axis of Evil comment. At the time I was a conservative and had not yet come to grips with W.’s fiscal liberalism, but his remark seemed to be reasonable due to the Islamic regime in Iran, its agitating, and its backing of terrorism abroad. However, this book puts in a timeline which makes it seem extremely foolish.
The history of Turkey and Iran on their acquisition, and later, their fights for, Democracy, in the face of external and internal forces is an amazing history, especially for the American who knows little about either country, and it presents a compelling case that Turkey and Iran are two of the better friends that America could hope for in Western Asia.
The history of Israeli arms support to Guatemala and El Salvador was something I had never heard. In Guatemala, the book reports that 180,000 largely unarmed peasants were liquidated as part of a supposed anti-Communist purge. One might need to investigate the other side of this equation to see if it was that simple.
When Kinzey starts getting down to brass tacks as to what the U.S. should do, his solutions are not quite as strong as I thought they could be. First, he talks about the House of Bush and the House of Saud as given in a book by Craig Unger. Then, he gives as one of his first examples a misconception, when W. held the king of Saudi Arabia’s hand when he came to Texas, this did not, as Kinzer supposed, show some especially intimate relationship. This is a common act in the Middle East. Common friends—i.e., friends are always more than common in the ME—all hold hands. So for Kinzey to not understand this ME custom and to ascribe this special meaning to it when there was none, didn’t bode well for his understanding of the culture.
To foreign policy, he was fair about not cutting ties with Saudi and Israel for many good reasons, he then unfortunately went on to be vague about U.S. mistakes in the Cold War, giving no specific examples.
“Land for Peace” was offered as the common sense solution for the I-P question. More than naïve, it is patently false. Israel has done this, and they did not get peace. 98% of ’67 borders rejected.
The “de-coupled” alliance with Turkey, however, did seem sound.
In the end, the political histories of Turkey and Iran, as well as the forming of the U.S.-Saudi relationship, was interesting. However, Kinzer’s foreign policy recommendations were perhaps simplistic, if not reasonable. Recommended to those interested in foreign policy, or to the American who has an unexamined bias towards the Middle East.
November 4, 2019
Overall this book provided good insight to the context of the international realm, but also spent a good deal of time on Israel and Saudi Arabia, which I’m not upset about, but probably should be advertised in a more holistic view of the Middle East.
This book loses one star because I believe the author egregiously omits the fact that Iran uses terrorism as an extension of its foreign policy, not just for fear-mongering. This is only mentioned with one sentence near then end of the book by mentioning Hezbollah and Hamas, but does not encapsulate Iran’s full activities in Lebanon, Syria (through Assad’s father).
Additionally, he omits the fact that Iran had begun a nuclear program through US supporting the Shah, which was suspended during the Revolution, and then started back about 15 years later only after intense internal dialogue amongst the mullahs on the grounds of morality, not in reaction to the Iraq/Iran War, which may have played a part for sure.
I wish the author would have spent more time on these two items, as I believe they are incredibly important and would likely change his thought process, as well as others reading.
This book loses one star because I believe the author egregiously omits the fact that Iran uses terrorism as an extension of its foreign policy, not just for fear-mongering. This is only mentioned with one sentence near then end of the book by mentioning Hezbollah and Hamas, but does not encapsulate Iran’s full activities in Lebanon, Syria (through Assad’s father).
Additionally, he omits the fact that Iran had begun a nuclear program through US supporting the Shah, which was suspended during the Revolution, and then started back about 15 years later only after intense internal dialogue amongst the mullahs on the grounds of morality, not in reaction to the Iraq/Iran War, which may have played a part for sure.
I wish the author would have spent more time on these two items, as I believe they are incredibly important and would likely change his thought process, as well as others reading.
July 28, 2024
Another solid book
Stephen knocks it out of the park again and again. Worthy of your time and consideration. Have never disliked a Stephen Kinzer book. This book takes on specific countries such as Turkey, Iran, Israel, and Saudi Arabian and their relation to the USA.
Stephen knocks it out of the park again and again. Worthy of your time and consideration. Have never disliked a Stephen Kinzer book. This book takes on specific countries such as Turkey, Iran, Israel, and Saudi Arabian and their relation to the USA.
February 29, 2020
Bu kitabı tam olarak bir dakika önce bitirdim.. Tam bir günde ! Bunu övünmek için söylemiyorum, amacım kitabın ne kadar okunaklı olduğunu (tabii çevirmen elinden gelenin en iyisini yapmıştır) ve de ne kadar öğretme hevesi yarattığını söylemektir.
İlk olarak, kitap bir roman tadında yazılmıştır diyebilirim. Kitap Orta Doğunun iki ülkesi - Türkiye ve İran - hakkında geniş bilgi birikimi edinmenizi sağlıyor. Bu iki ülkenin Orta Doğuda demokrasiyi en eski tatmış olan ülkeler olduğunu görüyoruz. Türkler için demokrasi Türkiye Cümhuriyyetinin kurulması ile başladı desem, yalan söylemiş olarım. Demokrasiye doğru reformlar ta On Dokuzuncu yüzyılda (1837 Gülhane Hattı Şerifi) başladı, 1876-da ilk anayasa kabul edildi ve 1909-da anayasa yeniden iade edildi. İranda da tam olarak Türkiye ile aynı zamanda - 1906 - ilk anayasa kabul edildi.
İkinci olarak, bu iki ülkenin iki büyük önderi - İranda Şah Rza Pehlevi, Türkiyede ise Mustafa Kemal Paşa Atatürk - 20. yüzyılın ilk yarısına damğasını vurdu. Bu şahıslar adı çekilen ülkeler için o kadar önemli bir rol oynadı ki, bu ülkelerin gelişmesinin temelini oluşturdular. Yüzyılın ikinci yarısı Türkiye için askeri darbeler ve Turgut Özal, İran içinse İslam Devrimi ile akıllarda kaldı. Demokrasi yazara göre Türkiyede İrandan daha sağlam temellere sahip. Bunu güzelce anlatıyor tabii.
Üçüncü olarak, yeni (21.) yüzyılda Türkiye ve İranın ABD için oldukça önemli bir müttefik ola bileceğini (Türkiye zaten bir müttefik) söylüyor. İranla ABD geriliminin köklerinin 1953-te Ajax Operasyonu ile görevinden alınmış Muhammed Musaddık ve görevine iade edilmiş Şah Muhammed Rza Pehlevi (Şah Rza Pehlevinin oğlu) olayına, kısaca İranda gerçek demokrasinin bir Amerikan (ilk CİA) darbesine kadar uzandığını öğrenmiş oluyoruz. Yazar her iki ülkeye de gayet sıcak yaklaşıyor ve ABD politikasının bu iki ülkeye karşı değişmesi gerektiğini, onlara daha çok serbestlik alanı vermesini savunuyor. Bir gazeteci olan Stephen Kinzer gayet güzel bir iş yapmış açıkçası))
İlk olarak, kitap bir roman tadında yazılmıştır diyebilirim. Kitap Orta Doğunun iki ülkesi - Türkiye ve İran - hakkında geniş bilgi birikimi edinmenizi sağlıyor. Bu iki ülkenin Orta Doğuda demokrasiyi en eski tatmış olan ülkeler olduğunu görüyoruz. Türkler için demokrasi Türkiye Cümhuriyyetinin kurulması ile başladı desem, yalan söylemiş olarım. Demokrasiye doğru reformlar ta On Dokuzuncu yüzyılda (1837 Gülhane Hattı Şerifi) başladı, 1876-da ilk anayasa kabul edildi ve 1909-da anayasa yeniden iade edildi. İranda da tam olarak Türkiye ile aynı zamanda - 1906 - ilk anayasa kabul edildi.
İkinci olarak, bu iki ülkenin iki büyük önderi - İranda Şah Rza Pehlevi, Türkiyede ise Mustafa Kemal Paşa Atatürk - 20. yüzyılın ilk yarısına damğasını vurdu. Bu şahıslar adı çekilen ülkeler için o kadar önemli bir rol oynadı ki, bu ülkelerin gelişmesinin temelini oluşturdular. Yüzyılın ikinci yarısı Türkiye için askeri darbeler ve Turgut Özal, İran içinse İslam Devrimi ile akıllarda kaldı. Demokrasi yazara göre Türkiyede İrandan daha sağlam temellere sahip. Bunu güzelce anlatıyor tabii.
Üçüncü olarak, yeni (21.) yüzyılda Türkiye ve İranın ABD için oldukça önemli bir müttefik ola bileceğini (Türkiye zaten bir müttefik) söylüyor. İranla ABD geriliminin köklerinin 1953-te Ajax Operasyonu ile görevinden alınmış Muhammed Musaddık ve görevine iade edilmiş Şah Muhammed Rza Pehlevi (Şah Rza Pehlevinin oğlu) olayına, kısaca İranda gerçek demokrasinin bir Amerikan (ilk CİA) darbesine kadar uzandığını öğrenmiş oluyoruz. Yazar her iki ülkeye de gayet sıcak yaklaşıyor ve ABD politikasının bu iki ülkeye karşı değişmesi gerektiğini, onlara daha çok serbestlik alanı vermesini savunuyor. Bir gazeteci olan Stephen Kinzer gayet güzel bir iş yapmış açıkçası))
December 19, 2014
Fun and informative, but strangely unsatisfying. Not sure what it was exactly. Kinzer has a thesis to push, and it is one that I strongly agree with. Iran is a much more natural partner for the United States than our current "allies" in Saudi Arabia. This book provides brief histories of Turkey, Israel, Saudi Arabia and Iran, and their relationships with the United States. I learned a bit, and Kinzer's time as a foreign correspondent has left him with a deep knowledge of all these countries. It's a good short book for anyone who wants a brief account of how we got into the mess we are in.
I think the problem here is with me. My taste tends towards deeper dives into the histories of single countries. I like books I can also use to hold doors open, and this ain't that. Kinzer has a great sense for telling anecdotes, and tells a great story. It could almost make a good movie. A great intro, but not really for me.
One further note. The bits on Turkey are woefully out of date. What he says remains true, Turkey is a great partner for the US, but his rosy picture of President Erdogan needs some serious revision. This is not Kinzer's fault. In 2009, when the book was written, it was easy to be a big Erdogan fan. His struggle against the Turkish military was a worthwhile one. Now that Erdogan has won that struggle, however, a different and more disturbing picture has emerged.
So yeah, if you don't know anything about US policy in the Middle East, this is a great place to start. If you're more familiar with the history and the countries in question, you might find it kind of frustrating. It's not wrong, it's just short.
I think the problem here is with me. My taste tends towards deeper dives into the histories of single countries. I like books I can also use to hold doors open, and this ain't that. Kinzer has a great sense for telling anecdotes, and tells a great story. It could almost make a good movie. A great intro, but not really for me.
One further note. The bits on Turkey are woefully out of date. What he says remains true, Turkey is a great partner for the US, but his rosy picture of President Erdogan needs some serious revision. This is not Kinzer's fault. In 2009, when the book was written, it was easy to be a big Erdogan fan. His struggle against the Turkish military was a worthwhile one. Now that Erdogan has won that struggle, however, a different and more disturbing picture has emerged.
So yeah, if you don't know anything about US policy in the Middle East, this is a great place to start. If you're more familiar with the history and the countries in question, you might find it kind of frustrating. It's not wrong, it's just short.
Read
November 21, 2020What a wild ride.
Unstarred because of my inherent suspicion of people who offer direct commentary on how things "should" be. The idea is to come back after reading more, about all the sides of this multifaceted coin, and then read this book again.
The book delivers on what it promised to do: "it summons the logic of history to address the future." Kinzer explores Iran and Turkey - two countries where the US foreign policy ought to be focused on, and Saudi Arabia and Israel - where too much attention by the US has accomplished the opposite of what is aspired.
The four countries and the US are like the nodal points on the world map, where the string connecting them all - emerging from the US - ties eventually the rest of the entire world. As one of my professors in college once said: one should understand the "nose" of a subject and focus on it - pulling the nose brings you the entire body.
This is the nose.
I read this book after "All the Shah's Men", that delved into modern Iranian history in beautiful depth and detail. Meant to be so perhaps, as where Shah's Men fizzled out by the time Mohammad Reza Shah came to power after the 1953 coup d'etat, Reset builds strongly on the evolution of Iran under him, leading to Khomeini and beyond.
Once again, as in Shah's Men, the art of diplomacy is Kinzer's forte - more prominent in this book as he articulates on how it (the US policy in particular) needs to reinvent itself in the modern, post cold war context.
Marked for reread.
Unstarred because of my inherent suspicion of people who offer direct commentary on how things "should" be. The idea is to come back after reading more, about all the sides of this multifaceted coin, and then read this book again.
The book delivers on what it promised to do: "it summons the logic of history to address the future." Kinzer explores Iran and Turkey - two countries where the US foreign policy ought to be focused on, and Saudi Arabia and Israel - where too much attention by the US has accomplished the opposite of what is aspired.
The four countries and the US are like the nodal points on the world map, where the string connecting them all - emerging from the US - ties eventually the rest of the entire world. As one of my professors in college once said: one should understand the "nose" of a subject and focus on it - pulling the nose brings you the entire body.
This is the nose.
I read this book after "All the Shah's Men", that delved into modern Iranian history in beautiful depth and detail. Meant to be so perhaps, as where Shah's Men fizzled out by the time Mohammad Reza Shah came to power after the 1953 coup d'etat, Reset builds strongly on the evolution of Iran under him, leading to Khomeini and beyond.
Once again, as in Shah's Men, the art of diplomacy is Kinzer's forte - more prominent in this book as he articulates on how it (the US policy in particular) needs to reinvent itself in the modern, post cold war context.
Marked for reread.
March 29, 2013
Bottom line, we (the US) needs to reshape our foreign policy in the Mideast. Out of the two countries in the Mideast that are populated with people yearning for a democracy, one we declared a part of the Axis of Evil (Iran) and the other (Turkey) we have pretty much forgotten about since "winning" the Cold War. The author takes you through the histories of both countries, on their rode to democracy, and the events that occurred stopping one (Iran) and slowing the other (Turkey). Both countries are rich in history, and are "attached" to American principles in many ways. We need to take advantage of this. Great book, and I recommend it to anyone interested in our relations with these two countries, and the possibilities that can happen if we quit "shooting ourselves in the foot".
January 14, 2012
Interesting book. It was the occasion for me to know more about the history of Iran, saudi arabia and israel.
I was more aware of turkey's history, cause i am turkish.
The book was really interesting in the first parts, but i wasn't really convinced by the last parts..
Now that i have a global vision of the situation, i'm gonna read other books which focus on each country..
I'll be starting with Iran.
I was more aware of turkey's history, cause i am turkish.
The book was really interesting in the first parts, but i wasn't really convinced by the last parts..
Now that i have a global vision of the situation, i'm gonna read other books which focus on each country..
I'll be starting with Iran.
September 16, 2012
Mr. Kinzer clearly has passion for Turkey and the Middle East. I greatly enjoyed this book as the passion makes it worthy to read and I learned a great deal about Turkey and Iran. The book ventures off to Israel and the PLO which I felt was taking away fromthe title, however, he pulled it all back to tie it in on how Turkey and Iran are handling their affairs and how Israel fits in with America and these two countries. Wonderful book and well worth the time to read.
July 3, 2010
I would like for this book to be in every household in the U.S. I think it is the best book written regarding foreign policy. What a pity the 2000 presidential election didn't go the other way. The only currency the United States has to spend is it's good will and example. President Obama has the intelligence to use that currency if the country would support him
February 2, 2020
The first two-thirds of the book were pretty great, but the theme of Kinzer's book - that Turkey will be a secular light for the Middle East to follow - has been pretty much dashed since Erdogan has made his end-run away from it. Saudi Arabia and Israel also feature prominently in the last third of the book, which feels as though it was made to pad the book.
February 27, 2011
An interesting time to read the history of U.S. and other Western diplomatic missteps in the Middle East. Let's hope that this time we don't screw up the opportunities afforded us during the current realignment.
June 17, 2011
If there is any "good" consequence about early 21st century world terrorism, it is that it's captured my attention and focused my neglected interest in middle world history. I like this book's description of early 20th century events a lot and intend to seek out the author's other books.
July 24, 2011
Liked this book a lot. For a long time I have felt so uninformed regarding the Middle East. This book gave me a lot of history and helped fill in political and religious information. Would really recommend.
November 14, 2011
Very informative. Applicable to current mid-east news.
January 23, 2011
Very worthwhile look at geopolitics from a different perspective.
April 9, 2015
I can't believe anyone can be so naive....history wise well done. but his own thoughts? the easter bunny comes to mind.
January 8, 2017
نگاه بسیار واقعگرایانه توام با ذکر تاریخ و همینطور آگاهی گسترده و شناخت خوبِ نویسنده از منطقه خاورمیانه کتاب رو در زمره کتابهای مفید و خواندنی قرار میده.
January 2, 2012
Much needed solution to American policy in the Middle East and a very viable way forward!
March 14, 2016
Great for developing an understanding of why things are the way they are in the Middle East.
January 22, 2025
Stephen Kinzer proposes a radical reset of America's approach to the Middle East by making Turkey and an evolved Iran the main partners in the Middle East, rather than Israel and Saudi Arabia. This makes good sense, but it is a hard sell, specifically with Iran.
As a long-term observer of Iran related issues, I am acutely aware of how difficult it is to unravel the Gordian knot of US-Iran relations, however I am in agreement with the author that one should treat Iran as it is, not as Washington wants it to be. This in itself would bring benefits as a less threatened Iran would less feel the need to focus on Israel, and could in turn help the US stabilise Iraq and Afghanistan (a moot point since 2011 and 2021 respectively).
The book itself reads more like a 20th century history of both Iran and Turkey, with a brief foray into Israel and Saudi Arabia. So for those who were expecting purely foreign policy analysis, this may be a disappointment, however, it is a highly readable history.
Ultimately, no foreign policy reset can be achieved without examination of the history of relations between Turkey, Iran and the US and adequate reflection on what went wrong. Only through coming to terms of how the US got so much wrong with Iran can it pave a better path forward.
Despite giving equal attention to Turkey, policy prescriptions for Turkey are limited other than to let Turkey take the driving seat in Middle East relations and the US to be a partner. This in itself is sound advice, but this reader expected to hear more.
Although the book is 14 years old and much has changed since (US withdrawal from Iraq and Afghanistan, Arab Winter) the policy prescriptions for Turkey and Iran are as relevant as ever and the history of the 2 countries is perhaps the most readable this reader has read.
In all, Reset is a book that is not only wise and pragmatic, but highly readable and a pleasure all round.
As a long-term observer of Iran related issues, I am acutely aware of how difficult it is to unravel the Gordian knot of US-Iran relations, however I am in agreement with the author that one should treat Iran as it is, not as Washington wants it to be. This in itself would bring benefits as a less threatened Iran would less feel the need to focus on Israel, and could in turn help the US stabilise Iraq and Afghanistan (a moot point since 2011 and 2021 respectively).
The book itself reads more like a 20th century history of both Iran and Turkey, with a brief foray into Israel and Saudi Arabia. So for those who were expecting purely foreign policy analysis, this may be a disappointment, however, it is a highly readable history.
Ultimately, no foreign policy reset can be achieved without examination of the history of relations between Turkey, Iran and the US and adequate reflection on what went wrong. Only through coming to terms of how the US got so much wrong with Iran can it pave a better path forward.
Despite giving equal attention to Turkey, policy prescriptions for Turkey are limited other than to let Turkey take the driving seat in Middle East relations and the US to be a partner. This in itself is sound advice, but this reader expected to hear more.
Although the book is 14 years old and much has changed since (US withdrawal from Iraq and Afghanistan, Arab Winter) the policy prescriptions for Turkey and Iran are as relevant as ever and the history of the 2 countries is perhaps the most readable this reader has read.
In all, Reset is a book that is not only wise and pragmatic, but highly readable and a pleasure all round.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 69 reviews