Guests of the Ayatollah by Mark Bowden

This is the story of the Iran hostage crisis which began in 1979. Before I read this book, I had no idea how much of an impact the crisis had on the US and Iran. Not merely shaping how each viewed the other, but even influencing politics inside those nations.

The book goes into great detail on certain aspects of the hostage-taking and follows some, but not all, of the hostages from beginning to end. Of the 52 hostages inside the embassy, only about 12 are mentioned more than once. This is not a drawback, of course. Bowden is using a representative sample as a complete account of every day of every hostage would be an incredibly long, boring, and ultimately unenlightening book. Moreso than in Black Hawk Down, this book covers the wider implications of the crisis, including Carter's response and the Ayatollah Khomeini's irrational and unpredictable behavior. Not only does he relate simply what the leaders and actors in the crisis did, but why they did it.

Bowden, it hardly needs to be said, writes excellently and this book tells a fascinating story. The story, of course, is true and would stand on its own regardless of who wrote it, but Bowden crafts a tight storyline. The book is just too thick and the plot too intricate to even summarize, but some of the more important reasons to read this book are the effects this crisis had on the Carter administration and the future of the Iranian government. Carter's moderate response to the crisis is what eventually led to his loss of reelection. The responses of the members of the Iranian government who opposed the takeover are what led to the supremacy of the Islamic hardliners and the continuing tyranny of what Bowden describes as the "mullah-ocracy". As a case in point, it should be noted that current President Ahmadinejad was one of the original planners of the takeover. Some of the hostages even claim he was one of the interrogators.

Of course the human drama is worth reading as well. The hostages were in doubt of their futures and lives until the moment they were told they had crossed out of Iranian airspace. The long, laborious process the diplomats faced in even figuring out who to negotiate with in the almost non-existent Iranian government also provides worthy reading.

To get back to the larger historical picture, the hostage crisis could be blamed for much of ills that have plagued the Middle East for the past 25 years. When the embassy was taken, the US froze Iranian assets, including equipment for the military that the Shah had already paid for. Because of Iran's state of disorganization and unpreparedness, Saddam Hussein felt Iraq was well poised to strike and seize the Shatt Al Arab, as well as some valuable oil fields. If Carter had been reelected, the US would not have dealt with Saddam and given him weapons (of mass destruction!), and possibly, even probably, we would not be in a war there now. If Iran's moderate government hadn't been toppled due to the instability caused by the seizure, Iran might be a moderate democracy and would never have backed terrorists.

Lastly, this book provides some insight into how Iranians viewed and view the US. It's not what you might think. There are and have always been those who sympathized with the US and wished to have normal relations with us. There are those who believe America is the Great Satan (and they're usually among the most ignorant). One also gets to see what Khomeini was really like, and it was more like a powerless puppet than you might think.

Anyway, that's all I can think to say for this book. You need to read it, unless you already know everything there is to know about the history of Iranian-US relations.

All the Shah's Men by Stephen Kinzer

This book provides an excellent starting place for anyone who wants to understand the United States' relationship with Iran. It covers the events surrounding the US-backed overthrow of Iran's democratically elected Prime Minister Mohammed Mossadegh. At first, it might sound like this book exists to blame the US for its actions in Iran and point out how they have come back to haunt us, but while that's definitely a lesson to take from the book, this is a solid history.

There's no strict timeline in the book; the focus is on several different players over time. The story begins with British oil interests in Iran which coalesce into the Anglo-Iranian Oil Company. The name may imply partnership, but the British steadfastly opposed allowing the Iranians any more involvement than manual labor. The book also covers Mohammed Mossadegh's life and rise to power. Mossadegh was and still is a central figure in Iranian history. If his government hadn't been overthrown, Iran might now be a moderate democracy experiencing growth pains instead of a repressive Islamic state ruled by tyrants. The central conflict of the book was Mossadegh's decision to nationalize Anglo-Iranian in 1951, a decision that sent the British into paroxysms of self-righteous rage. Ironically, the British had nationalized industries shortly before in the name of national interests.

From then on, the story was full of British intransigence, and Iranian stubbornness. The British kept hoping they could use the Shah to overturn Mossadegh and absolutely refused to accept the truth of the situation in Iran. Their entrenched racism comes through quite clearly in quoted documents. In truth, the British come off looking pretty ridiculous throughout it all. They certainly had some claim to remuneration, but since they were pretty much exploiting Iran's people and natural resources, the reader won't be highly sympathetic to their claims. The British also unfairly bullied the US on the issue. Truman showed remarkable restraint in trying to work out a diplomatic solution, but the unwillingness of both sides to compromise doomed his efforts to failure.

The coup actually doesn't take up much of the book, because even though it was central to the story, it was a relatively minor event. Unlike other coups, this one didn't dissolve the government, but rather put it back in the hands of the Shah. The Shah comes across as a vain, cowardly man who, although he desired a modern and moderate Iran, was unwilling to do it the right way through transitioning to a democratic government. He believed in his divine right to rule (and surely felt justified when his SAVAK secret police killed dissenters).

The United States' role in the coup is laid out in detail in this book. With the shift in administrations from Truman to Eisenhower, the US took a different tack. The Eisenhower administration placed first importance on containment of the Soviets and the British painted Iran as ripe for a Marxist takeover (it wasn't). The Dulles brothers decided that supporting Britain was in the US' interests, and from then on pressured Eisenhower to allow them to do something about it. It was only a matter of time before he gave in. Kermit Roosevelt, CIA agent and grandson of the famous President Theodore Roosevelt, was almost single-handedly responsible for bringing about the coup. He made the arrangement, found the contacts, and spread the money around.

If you've ever wondered why Iranians marched around the US embassy shouting "Death to America" or "Death to Carter" or "America is the Great Satan", this book is the place to start. The "popular" uprising against Mossadegh was nothing more than mobs and thugs paid off by Kermit Roosevelt's agents to march against him, and in one stroke Iran was taken off the path of Democracy and freedom and began its slow decline into the Islamic tyranny that it is now, where full-body coverings for women are mandated by law and journalists that speak against the Imam may be beaten. It's true that we didn't directly do that to Iran, but it's also true that we made it possible for it to happen.

Judgments aside, this is a great compact history of the coup, its prelude and its aftermath. I'm sure there are larger, more comprehensive ones, but surely none this concise and well written and interesting to read. Given Iran's place in the papers these days, I suggest you start reading.