Gregory Brew, an analyst specializing in energy geopolitics, reviews Scott Anderson's "King of Kings," a book examining the U.S.'s missteps in Iran leading up to the 1979 revolution. The revolution itself—marked by the fall of the U.S.-backed Pahlavi monarchy and its replacement with an Islamist regime—ushered in an era of sustained U.S. involvement in the Middle East, including wars, occupations, and direct military action against Iran.
Anderson's book revisits the tumultuous events of 1978-79, highlighting the sluggishness of U.S. policy and the unpredictable character of political change. These themes are particularly relevant now, as Iran policy remains stalled even as internal shifts suggest potentially significant developments.
"King of Kings" emphasizes the inertia within U.S. policymaking circles and the unforeseen nature of political upheaval. These themes resonate strongly today, particularly given the current stagnation in Iran policy, even as internal developments point to potentially significant and unpredictable changes.
Echoes of the Past
Anderson's account of the Iranian Revolution is a compelling narrative that relies on newly uncovered , notably with Empress Farah Pahlavi. He sheds light on the contributions of U.S. officials who recognized the instability of the Shah's regime and urged the Carter administration to take action. Figures like Gary Sick, Henry Precht, and Michael Metrinko, a fluent Farsi speaker who witnessed the revolution firsthand, contribute to Anderson's narrative.
Rather than focusing solely on the causes of the revolution, Anderson delves into its chaotic nature, portraying events as a whirlwind of calm interspersed with sudden bursts of upheaval. Nevertheless, he suggests that the events of 1978-79 were, to a degree, inevitable. This inevitability stems from two primary factors: the character of the Shah and the structure of U.S.-Iran relations.
The Shah and U.S. Policy
Anderson argues that the Shah, empowered by the U.S. after the 1953 overthrow of Mohammed Mosaddeq, was ultimately a flawed leader, "a weak man playing at being a hard man," unfit to navigate the crisis.
Furthermore, the U.S., having installed the Shah, had little choice but to support him, as the coup had eliminated any viable alternative. Iran became a crucial U.S. ally, a key oil supplier, and a major arms purchaser.
This created a policy trap, where acknowledging the Shah's weakening grip was deemed detrimental to U.S. interests. Thus, Washington's flawed policy was sustained by inertia.
Intelligence Failures and Missed Opportunities
Anderson's analysis is particularly insightful when examining the U.S. role. The U.S. government's failure to anticipate the Shah's downfall is portrayed as a clear intelligence failure, underscoring the need for dynamic, informed, and adaptable policymaking grounded in accurate assessments of the situation.
Anderson's work highlights a concerning parallel: the U.S. risks repeating the mistakes of the past. Despite damaging Iran's nuclear program, the U.S. has seemingly disengaged, failing to capitalize on the situation for diplomatic progress. Iran, much like before 1978, is being treated as a settled issue, potentially setting the stage for further miscalculations.
FAQs
What were the main U.S. missteps in Iran that led to the 1979 revolution?
According to "King of Kings," the U.S. missteps included inertia in policymaking, failure to recognize the Shah's weakening grip, and intelligence failures leading to a misjudgment of the situation. The U.S. felt trapped supporting the Shah due to prior interventions and strategic interests.
How does the Iranian Revolution impact U.S. foreign policy today?
The revolution ushered in an era of sustained U.S. involvement in the Middle East, including wars and direct military action against Iran. The book suggests that the U.S. continues to struggle with Iran policy, even as internal shifts suggest potentially significant developments.
What role did the Shah of Iran play in the revolution, according to "King of Kings?"
The book argues that the Shah was a flawed leader, "a weak man playing at being a hard man," unfit to navigate the crisis. His character, combined with the structure of U.S.-Iran relations, contributed to the inevitability of the revolution.
You've got the context, now make it count. Put your political predictions to work and explore pre market trading crypto with Whales Market.