Reddit mentions: The best iran history books

Here's a list of the key books in the field that I'm familiar with (by name and general contents, I've only actually read a few of them). I'm mainly focusing on what is relevant to the study of Twelver Shi'ism; there aren't many English language books on Zaidism, as far as I'm aware, and for Isma'ilism you can start with the works of Farhad Daftary.

I'll start with important works providing an overview of the area, and then give a rough breakdown by "era" (I may be a bit off regarding the era, and many of these books straddle two or more eras, so be warned). This list does not emphasize geographic studies of Shi'ism in various areas and countries, and rather traces the "core narrative" of the development of Shi'i intellectual history, which is typically thought of as happening in what is now modern day Iran, Iraq, and (especially in the post-Mongol/pre-Safavid era) Lebanon, and to a lesser extent in Bahrain. Once you've read the initial works, you should have a good idea about what's going on in each era, and you can pick and choose what to read based on your interests.

If you have no background in general Islamic history, you should first pick up a book on that subject. Tamim Ansary's Destiny Disrupted is an accessible non-academic book on general Islamic history (with an entertaining audiobook read by the author). If you want something heavier and more academic, Marshall G.S. Hodgson's The Venture of Islam is the classic three-volume reference in the field of Islamic studies, although it's a bit dated, especially in the third volume (covering the so-called "Gunpowder Empires"). Note that the standard introductory text on Shi'ism has long been Moojan Momen's book An Introduction to Shi'i Islam: The History and Doctrines of Twelver Shi'ism, but this book is now a bit dated. Heinz Halm also has some surveys, but I'm less familiar with these; likewise for the surveys of Farhad Daftary (who is better known for his work on Isma'ilism than general Shi'ism).

Surveys, Background, and Introduction

• Najam Haider's Shi'i Islam: An Introduction. This is a unique take on introducing Shi'ism that starts with what makes Shi'ism theologically distinct; the book also devotes roughly equal attention to the Zaidi, Isma'ili, and Twelver branches of the faith.
  
• Hossein Modaressi's An Introduction to Shi'i Law: A Bibliographical Study. Chapter 4 provides a very concise, yet fairly thorough overview of the history of the development of Shi'i legal theory; Chapters 1-3 can be read as "optional" background, while the rest is a bibliographical overview that is unlikely to be of interest to a non-specialist.
  
• Andrew J. Newman's Twelver Shiism: Unity and Diversity in the Life of Islam, 632 to 1722. A solid history of Twelver Shi'ism from its beginnings to the end of the Safavid period.
  
• Roy Mottahedeh's The Mantle of the Prophet: Religion and Politics in Iran. While ostensibility an intellectual history of Iran spanning centuries, this is a great introductory look at various aspects of Shi'ism, particularly as it concerns learning in the seminaries.
  
  The Succession and the so-called "Rashidun" Era
  
  
• Wilfred Madelung's The Succession to Muhammad: A Study of the Early Calpihate
  
• S.M.H. Jafri's The Origins and Early Development of Shi'i Islam
  
  The Imams and Early Shi'is in the Ummayid and `Abbasid Eras
  
  
• Arzina Lalani's Early Shi'i Thought: The Contribution of Imam Muhammad Al-Baqir
  
• Najam Haider's The Origins of the Shi'a: Identity, Ritual, and Sacred Space in Eighth-Century Kufa
  
• Maria Massi Dakake's The Charismatic Community: Shi'ite Identity in Early Islam
  
• Hossein Modarressi's Crisis and Consolidation in the Formative Period of Shi'ite Islam: Abu Ja'far Ibn Qiba Al-Razi and His Contribution to Imamite Shi'ite Thought. Considered the standard book on the "rationalist/moderate/shortcoming" view of Imamate.
  
• Mohammad Ali Amir Moezzi's The Divine Guide in Early Shi'ism: The Sources of Esotericism in Islam. Considered the standard book on the esoteric / "High Imamology" view of Imamate.
  
• Jasim M. Hussain's The Occultation of the Twelfth Imam (A Historical Background)
  
• Andrew J. Newman's The Formative Period of Twelver Shi'ism: Hadith as Discourse Between Qum and Baghdad
  
• Meir M. Bar-Asher's Scripture and Exegesis in Early Imami Shiism
  
  The Buyid, Seljuq, and Mongol Eras
  
  
• Martin J. McDermott's The Theology of al-Shaikh al-Mufid (d. 413/1022)
  
• Devin J. Stewart's Islamic Legal Orthodoxy. Some people have reservations about this book, so you might want to look at some reviews. It covers the Shi'i school of Shaykh Tusi engaging in juristic legal borrowing from the Shafi'i Sunni school, if I'm not mistaken.
  
• Etan Kohlberg's A Medieval Muslim Scholar at Work: Ibn Tawus and His Library. This is perhaps a little different from most other books on this list in scope, style, and focus.
  
  The Safavid Era and the Scholars of Jabal Amil
  
  
• Rula Abisaab's Converting Persia: Religion and Power in the Safavid Empire
  
• Robert Gleave's Scripturalist Islam: The History and Doctrines of the Akhbari Shi'i School
  
  The Iranian Interregnum Era
  
  
• Zachary M. Heern's The Emergence of Modern Shi'ism: Islamic Reform in Iraq and Iran
  
• Robert Gleave's Inevitable Doubt: Two Theories of Shi'i Jurisprudence. This is definitely worth a look if you're interested in details concerning Shi'i legal theory proper.
  
  The Qajar Era
  
  
• Hamid Algar's Religion and State in Iran 1785-1906: The Role of the Ulama in the Qajar Period. This book is about fifty years old now, but I think it's still the standard reference for this topic.
  
• Meir Litvak's Shi'i Scholars of Nineteenth-Century Iraq: The 'Ulama' of Najaf and Karbala'
  
  The Contemporary Era / Miscellaneous
  
  
• Liyakat Nathani Takim's Shi'ism in America. I said I'd stay away from the more geographically focused books, but I think this one in particular might appeal to a lot of people; mainly those living in the West in general, and North America in particular.
  
  
• Linda S. Walbridge's The Thread of Mu'awiya: The Making of a Marja' Taqlid. A book with a strange title about the foremost Shi'i scholars in the contemporary age; while published posthumously in the 2010s, the book is based on research conducted in the 1990s. I think it contains a lot of valuable information and an interesting perspective, but I also find some of it to be informed by lazy misconceptions or generalizations, although I'm quite sure the author would have substantially reworked this project had she lived longer.
  
• Ata Anzali's Mysticism in Iran: The Safavid Roots of a Modern Concept. This should provide information on irfan.
  
• Kamran Scot Aghaie's The Martyrs of Karbala: Shi'i Symbols and Rituals in Modern Iran. This covers the evolution of the Karbala narrative in Modern Iran (in the Qajar, Pahlavi, and post-Revolutionary eras, respectively).
  
• Matthew Pierce's Twelve Infallible Men: The Imams and the Making of Shi'ism. This book examines how the genre of the biographies of the Imams was formed (this may be a better fit in one of the above categories, but I'm less familiar with this book, so I'm not sure which era(s) is/are the focus).

SECOND

What the "Iranian nuclear threat" was actually all about, was a pretext to impose regime-change in Iran, pushed by the Isreaelis and NeoCons, just as they pushed for the Iraq war with bogus claims about "WMDs in Iraq"

They exaggerated the iran threat
http://www.pri.org/stories/2015-02-27/israeli-government-has-exaggerated-iranian-nuclear-threat-years

And the Iraq threat
http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/world/iraq/2003-12-04-israeli-iraq-threat_x.htm


The pushed for the Iraq war
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/israel-to-us-dont-delay-iraq-attack/

and a war on Iran
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/israel-prodding-us-to-attack-iran/

The pro-Israeli lobby had been pushing a PR war on Iran for a long time already, ie:
http://www.uscatholic.org/culture/war-and-peace/2008/06/iran-spam

And AIPAC (American-Israel Public Affairs Committee) spent millions of dollars trying to undermine the deal

https://www.thenation.com/article/inside-the-effort-to-kill-the-iran-deal/

http://www.npr.org/sections/itsallpolitics/2015/08/06/429911872/in-iran-deal-fight-lobbyists-are-spending-millions-to-sway-12-senators

See, the Israelis (and Saudis) and their supporters in the US including the NeoCons and Iran hawks consider an improvement in US-Iran relations as coming at their expense, so they don't want to see the US and Iran getting along and they would rather see the US engage in regime-change in Iran

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/11/john-bolton-iran-regime-change-231586

http://foreignpolicy.com/2015/01/05/its-time-to-pursue-regime-change-in-iran/

This book is all about that: http://www.amazon.com/Manufactured-Crisis-Untold-Story-Nuclear/dp/1935982338

On the other hand, there are people who say that the US should "go to Iran" just as Nixon went to China because that will promote US interests the best
https://www.amazon.com/Going-Tehran-America-Islamic-Republic/dp/1250043530

Note that when Nixon decided to recognize Communist China, the US had to dump relations with Taiwan. Israel does not want to become a Taiwan if the US decides to mend relations with Iran.

Here's another book I plan to read once it comes out: https://www.amazon.com/Deal-Century-Iran-Blocked-Wests/dp/0997896507


FINALLY

The nuclear agreement called the JCPOA (Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action) is not technically a "treaty" but is an "executive agreement"

Executive Agreements are more common in international affairs than treaties, they also don't have the same formalities such as a need to be ratified through the Senate. There's a lot of hype claiming that Obama somehow violated the constitution by entering into the agreement but there's absolutely nothing unconstitutional about executive agreements, they're actually VERY common. https://www.state.gov/s/l/treaty/faqs/70133.htm

There's all sort of BS being claimed, namely that Iran did not "sign" the agreement and that it is not "legally binding" -- but in fact international agreements including treaties are not legally binding (there is no court, judge or police to enforce them) and instead they are political agreements that are "binding" only as long as each party agrees to be bound by it. International agreements are also not a car loan that require you to sign them to be valid.

It is also claimed that there were "Secret concessions" made to Iran which were "exposed" by the UN.
Example:

>U.N. watchdog exposes secret concessions in Obama’s Iran deal

http://www.theblaze.com/news/2016/12/25/u-n-watchdog-exposes-secret-concessions-in-obamas-iran-deal/

But in fact literally EVERY WORD in that headline is actually false. The documents were not "exposed", the signatories themselves decided to make them public so as to end the hype about "secret deals", there were no "concessions" just technical agreements like agreeing to not count unrecoverable waste Uranium in the amount that Iran was supposed to be able to keep, and in fact the IAEA is not part of the UN but is an independent agency, and it isn't a "watchdog" either its role in the NonProliferation Treaty is just as an accountant that measures declared nuclear material to make sure the declared amounts match the actual amounts, that's all (it isn't an investigative agency or an intelligence agency charged with finding WMDs, in fact its actual job is to promote the use of nuclear technology)

The JCPOA required certain measures by Iran for at least 10-15 years (after which the "normal" Non-Proliferation Treaty obligations will continue to be in place) ie to limit the number of centrifuges it operates that are used to enrich uranium before using the material to make reactor fuel rods, to only enrich to 3.65% which can't be used for bombs (Iran never enriched uranium to bomb-grade anyway) to reduce its stockpile of enriched uranium, and to cease work on a heavy water reactor and to export any heavy water it produces beyond its domestic needs. Iran has done all of that and the IAEA has verified it in its reports. https://www.iaea.org/sites/default/files/16/11/gov2016-55.pdf

However the opponents of the deal have been claiming that Iran has supposedly "violated" the deal by producing 0.1 ton more heavy water than a the 130 ton "limit" contained in the agreement. The problem is that there is actually no such limit in the agreement.

Annex 1, Part C, Paragraph 14 of the JCPOA states that Iran is to keep enough heavy water to meet its domestic needs including contingency stocks (estimated to be 130 tons in total) and any excess is to be exported for sale.

All Iran is required to do under Paragraph 15 is inform the IAEA of its heavy water stock and allow occasional IAEA visits to the production facility to monitor the stock.

Iran has done all that too.

Note that neither paragraph imposes a specific upper limit on the amount of heavy water which can be produced.

See http://www.state.gov/documents/organization/245318.pdf for the exact text I'm citing



And 24 extra gallons of heavy water is not a violation of that "estimate". Note that heavy water itself is quite harmless and can't be used as a weapon and furthermore without an operational heavy water reactor (Iran poured concrete into the reactor their were building so it can't ever work, as the agreement required) there is no way that heavy water can somehow be used to make nukes anyway (and, the reactor was subject to IAEA monitoring anyway.)

In exchange, the US is supposed to lift as many sanctions as it can and release Iran's frozen funds. OF course the Iranians and the Obama administration new that they could not lift ALL the sanctions since most of the sanctions were imposed by COngress, not the President. So some sanctions have been removed but the US and Iran still can't do business especially since existing sanctions prevent Iran from doing business using US dollars which is the international currency. And, Congress is pushing for new sanctions. The Iranians consider this a violation of the agreement which requires the US to do its best to remove all sanctions but the text of the treaty does not actually require all the sanctions to be removed.

So bottom line is that despite all the hype, neither side has "violated" the agreement.

Note however that the US and Iran are not the only parties to the deal: Russia, China, Germany, UK and France that have signed it too, and it has been endorsed by the UN Security Council. The European courts had already ruled sanctions on Iran to be illegal before the deal,

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-iran-sanctions-eu-idUSBRE91514220130206

http://uk.reuters.com/article/uk-iran-nuclear-courts-insight-idUKBRE96E0M920130715

and the the other countries have told the US that they will continue to abide by the deal even if the US pulls out.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/12/07/iran-nuclear-deal-vital-warns-theresa-may-donald-trump-vows/

http://www.thehindu.com/news/international/In-a-message-to-Trump-China-defends-Iran-nuclear-deal/article16767795.ece

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-iran-nuclear-eu-idUSKCN0PU0S520150720

http://www.jpost.com/Middle-East/Iran-News/Russia-Loss-of-Iranian-nuclear-deal-would-be-unforgivable-475468

http://www.breitbart.com/jerusalem/2016/12/06/china-warns-trump-iran-nuclear-deal-must-stand/

http://uk.reuters.com/article/uk-iran-nuclear-europe-idUKKCN0RA2H420150910

I recommend these just as general Iran books. All of them touch on the Revolution a good bit and will help you understand Iran better:

All the Shah's Men
It does get a bit boring at parts but will help your overall understanding of Iran/the Revolution.

Shah
This is another must read to understand the revolution and Iran. This touches on the Constitutional Revolution as well.
The Ayatollah Begs to Differ
One of the best books about Iran I have ever read. The author (Hooman Majd) has a good bit of "insider" access to some Iranian elites and offers a unique perspective on Iran.

A must see documentary in my opinion is The Queen and I An Expat Irani and the Last Queen (Farah) of Iran. Very interesting and shows a whole new perspective to it all.

I also strongly recommend the videos about the topic found on youtube. There are countless options on the site, most of which have been very reliable in my experiences.

PS Tell me more about your studies. History scholars are always of great interest.

I have a copy of this but haven't read it. We used this in a religion class. It's really just an overview but it may be a good jumping off point (lots of references to chase). There may be a more readable ancient near east book. This to cover zoroaster.

You can get the original Gilgamesh translation or Enuma Elish free from Gutenberg. There have probably been half a dozen books written on each one so just look those up.

I think that, even if you have books and a ton of references in hand, it's not going to settle the matter for very many theists. Most people's belief doesn't come from thoroughly convincing evidence. That god exists is, to them, an absolute. But, you know, it's fun stuff to read about.

The history of Iran is one of my favorite subjects. We in the US tend to view the entire Middle east as one monolithic culture, and learning about Persian/Iranian history really helps broaden one's perspective regarding US-Middle East relations.

So many fascinating subjects in Iranian history, from it's long and proud tradition of viewing itself as a coherent culture, which contrasts somewhat with the tribal nature of the Arabs, to the fledging democracy movement that was crushed in 1953 with a great deal of help from the CIA and Great Britain (which just might play into why our relationship with them isn't fantastic), to the current tensions within the country between the educated liberal youth, the religious Guardian Council, and the conservative forces around the military and Ahmadinejad.

My favorite intro book on the Iran is:

A Modern History of Iran by Ervand Abrahamian - a fantastic, and short, overview of Iran once it started modernizing with a few mentions of the deep cultural legacy of Persia.

To the extent that by 1978/9 it was widely (and accurately) believed in Iran that the US and Britain's secret agencies had influenced the 1953 coup, it surely had an effect on the outcome of the 1979 revolution against the Shah. The Pahlavi regime was viewed as dictatorial, capricious, overly luxuriant and un-democratic by its critics (among whom were both members of socially conservative anti-Imperialist Islamic groups and leftist/communist movements like the Tudeh (Masses) party). The Pahlavi regime after '53 largely relied on patronage systems, fueled by oil wealth, and viciously repressive police tactics (headed by the infamous SAVAK agency) to maintain its hold on power -- and its ability to do so was seen by many as conditioned by Western interests in keeping oil flowing, cheaply, out of Iran. The fact that M. Reza Pahlavi was originally harbored by the United States in the midst of the revolution fanned those flames. So if, by this question, you mean to ask whether the memory and after-effects of '53 had an influence on '79, then the answer (at least according to most of the scholarship on the issue) is an unequivocal yes.

If you mean something else by this question, then please clarify and I'll be happy to answer to the best of my ability.

Some further reading:

Nikki Keddie Roots of Revolution

Ervand Abrahamian Iran Between Two Revolutions

And you'll find a couple interesting sources on this in Akram Fouad Khater's Sources in Modern Middle East History

Not a problem- I really like the very professional level of discussion that this sub generates, so I'm always thrilled to get solid questions on my writing!

We've actually recently started including a reading list at the end of each article with books we like on the topic in question. They are Amazon affiliate links so they actually generate earnings to support the site, so if you are looking for more reading then please consider buying them using our links! In particular, for this article I recommended "Saudi Arabia & Iran: Power and Rivalry in the Middle East" by Simon Mabon. This book goes into depth about why the rivalry exists, and how it is likely to play out. Another interesting read on the topic is "The Sunni Vanguard", which is a little bit too pro-KSA, Turkey and Egypt to be called truly academic, but gives you an excellent assessment of the situation from those states' point of view.

In addition to many of the other books that others have listed (namely Kissinger and Mearsheimer) I have listed a few other books that I would highly recommend reading.

And because you are interested in learning more about the Middle East, be prepared to read. A lot. The Middle East is a far more complex place than most people imagine and understanding the region requires a great deal of knowledge. I have been studying the Middle East for nearly a decade and I still feel like there is so much that I do not know. I would start by reading reputable news sources every day. Places like The Economist, New York Times, Wall Street Journal, Washington Post, BBC, Financial Times, are the Los Angeles Times are good English language news sources that you should look at. Additionally, I have written up a suggested reading list for learning about the Middle East, though it is a bit more security-related since that's my area of expertise. I hope it helps. And feel free to ask any questions if you have them.

Books - International Relations, Theory and Beyond

• Daniel Drezner - Theories of International Politics and Zombies. A creative and humorous book that seeks to explain the major IR theories in a manner that is easy to understand. Good for establishing a base understanding of international relations.
  
• Bruce Hoffman - Inside Terrorism. Quite possibly the book on terrorism. Written by one of the field's best scholars, this books provides the best introduction and overview on what terrorism is and its history over the past century. Just be sure to purchase the 2006 edition.
  
• Graham Allison - Essence of Decision: Explaining the Cuban Missile Crisis. An examination of the different levels of how decisions are made, using the Cuban Missile Crisis as a case study. Another essential book for understanding how different states, agencies within a government, and even individuals, can have major impacts on foreign affairs.
  
• Carl von Clausewitz - On War. One of the most significant books on understanding war in world; its frequently listed alongside Sun Tzu's Art of War. It is essential reading for anyone interested in military affairs and how it plays into politics. Though you only need to read the 1st ,2nd, and maybe 8th chapter, everything else is unnecessary.
  
  

  Books - General History of the Middle East
  

  
  

• Albert Hourani - A History of the Arab Peoples. This is widely considered to be the definitive book on history in the Arab World.
  
• Eugene Rogan - The Arabs: A History. Another essential and critically acclaimed book on Arab history.
  
• Roy Mottahedeh - The Mantle of the Prophet. Role of religion and religious figures in Iran before and during the Islamic Revolution in 1979.
  
• Mark Lynch - The Arab Uprising: The Unfinished Revolutions of the New Middle East. An outline of the causes, reactions, and consequences of the Arab Spring.
  
• Thomas Barfield - Afghanistan: A Cultural and Political History. Afghanistan is usually not considered a part of the Middle East in academic research, so I am including this one. It's probably one of the best overviews of Afghan History.
  
  

  Books - Middle East Military History
  

  
  

• Kenneth Pollack - Arabs at War: Military Effectiveness, 1948-1991. Probably the best book on Arab militaries culture and effectiveness and warfare in the Middle East between 1945-1991. Very extensive and informative.
  
• Steven Ward - Immortal: A Military History of Iran and Its Armed Forces. A well-written history of Iran's military, from the Safavid Empire to the 21st century.
  
• Ahron Bregman - Israel's Wars: A History since 1947. A terrific book outlining Israel's strategic decision making for its military operations since its founding as a country.
  
• Bruce Hoffman - Anonymous Soldiers: The Struggle for Israel, 1917-1947. A look at the establishment of Israel and the development of the current Arab-Israeli conflict.
  
  

  Books - Middle East Terrorism and Substate Violence
  

  
  

• Daniel Byman - Al Qaeda, the Islamic State, and the Global Jihadist Movement: What Everyone Needs to Know. A terrific primer on al-Qaida, ISIL, and jihadism.
  
• Lawrence Wright - The Looming Tower: Al-Qaeda and the Road to 9/11. Probably the best book for outlining the history of al-Qaida and why 9/11 happened.
  
• Michael Wiess and Hassan Hassan - ISIS: Inside the Army of Terror. One of several recent books on ISIL, this one provides an overview on the history and organization of ISIL.
  
• Barry Rubin - Revolution Until Victory?: The Politics and History of the PLO. Although a little old (published in 1996), this books does a great job chronicling the history of the PLO and its role in the Palestinian struggle.
  
• Ahmed Rashid - Taliban: Militant Islam, Oil and Fundamentalism in Central Asia. One of the best books on the rise and fall of the Taliban.
  
  

  Books - U.S. Foreign Policy in the Middle East
  

  
  

• Bob Woodward - Obama's Wars. Outline of the U.S. foreign policy decision making towards Iraq and Afghanistan in the early years of the Obama administration.
  
• Kenneth Pollack - The Persian Puzzle: The Conflict Between Iran and America. A good overview of tensions between the United States and Iran.
  
• Michael R. Gordon - The Endgame: The Inside Story of the Struggle for Iraq, from George W. Bush to Barack Obama. Follows U.S. strategic and political decision making process during the Iraq War and the U.S. occupation.
  
• Peter R. Mansoor - Surge: My Journey with General David Petraeus and the Remaking of the Iraq War. An extensive outline of the development and outcome of the Surge during the U.S. Occupation of Iraq.
  
• Steve Coll - Ghost Wars: The Secret History of the CIA, Afghanistan, and Bin Laden, from the Soviet Invasion to September 10, 2001. A widely popular and acclaimed book on U.S. covert operations from the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan until 2001.
  
• Mark Mazzetti - The Way of the Knife: The CIA, a Secret Army, and a War at the Ends of the Earth. An overview of the CIA's targeted killing program against terrorist organizations.
  
• Michael Morrell - The Great War of Our Time: The CIA's Fight Against Terrorism--From al Qa'ida to ISIS. Written by the former acting director of the CIA, this book examines U.S. counterterrorism successes and failures of the past two decades.

There were historically two times that the Brits toppled pro democratic govts in Iran and reinstalled monarchist rule

Most people know about 1953: after the Iranian Prime Minister Mossadegh nationalized Iran's oil industry ( which until then was operated as a concession by British Petroleum, and powered the British navy), a joint CIA/ MI5 operation known as TP AJAX was put into effect, reinstalling the last Shah of Iran (the same one that would be later permanently toppled in the 1979 Islamic Revolution)
Currently the most popular book on that is "All the Shah's Men" by Stephen Kinzer. http://www.amazon.com/All-Shahs-Men-American-Middle/product-reviews/0470580410

However I also recommend Prince Farmanfarmaian's book "Blood and Oil"


What most people don't know is about the 1906 Constitutional Revolution in Iran, which established the first democracy in the Mideast, ended the 2500 history of absolute monarchy in Iran by adopting a system of Constitutional Monarchy where the King reigned but an elected Parliament ("Majlis") ruled as in the UK ( actually they copied the Belgian constitution). However this was short lived, since the British and Russian imperial forces backed another shah and put him back in power, and ended up shelling Iran's Parliament building. http://www.iranreview.org/content/Documents/Contemporary_History_The_Bombardemant_of_Majlis_June_23rd_1908.htm

Probably the best source on that is Janet Afary's book "
The Iranian Constitutional Revolution"


A certain American named Morgan Shuster who had been hired by the democratic govt to manage Iran's finances (who Britain and Russia hated) wrote a famous memoir about the times entitled "The Strangling of Persia"

All of these books are available on Amazon, buy used I suggest.

http://www.amazon.com/All-Shahs-Men-American-Middle/dp/0470580410 - just to make it easier! :) enjoy! -

As for the paper If I get to a good state on it, maybe. haha. It's not one of my finer works. but I'm using Iran as a case study.

Another book you may like, that I used when researching Iran for my paper! Khomeini: Life of the Ayatollah. It's on OpenLibrary and is quite fascinating. Khomeini, no matter how you feel about him. was a genius.

Contrary to popular myth, it is usually not men but women, particularly divorcees and widows, who seek temporary marriges, and many such arrangements lead to permanent loving relationships. Haeri’s extensive survey showed that many older women approached “young men, particularly handsome ones, directly and frequently”. http://www.amazon.com/Law-Desire-Temporary-Marriage-Contemporary/dp/0815624832/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1203007477&sr=8-1

For the lay person I would recommend Iran: a Very Short Introduction by Ali Ansari. It is admittedly about more than the revolution, but it talks a lot about the culture and social influences on that time period. Besides, it is short and much easier to read for someone that has been out of school for years.

For a more in-depth look check out a History of Modern Iran by Ervand Abrahamian. This book goes much more in-depth regarding the history of Iranian social factors stemming from early oil discovery and the Great Game and how that impacted leadership and prompted the nationalization of the oil companies - leading to the first revolution and the installation of the shah... and how that led to the second revolution. The last few chapters discuss the implications of radical Islam.

"Temporary marriage" means childen are considered legitimate and must be taken care of.

>As Shahla Haeri revealed in her 1989 book, Law of Desire (published in the UK by I B Tauris), many muta contracts in Iran are transformed into permanent, loving relationships. Contrary to popular myth, it is usually not men but women, particularly divorcees and widows, who seek muta marriage. Haeri’s extensive survey showed that many older women approached “young men, particularly handsome ones, directly and frequently”. http://www.amazon.com/Law-Desire-Temporary-Marriage-Contemporary/dp/0815624832

I explain that by oil of course, an increase in wealth. And yes there was 'a rise' in life expectancy -- as would be natural from 1950 to 1970 and it happened everywhere else in the world too -- but again, the point is that Iran didn't just continue to experience "a rise" but DOUBLED THE WORLD AVERAGE in improving living standards after the revolution.
See if you actually had set foot in Iran before and after the revolution, you'd know that there was a massive difference. Before the revolution, Tehran had huge shanty towns and slums, of the sort found in Manila. Just 20 minutes outside of Tehran, there was no clean running water or electricity. Not so anymore. Read this book then come back and argue.
http://www.amazon.com/Iran-Between-Revolutions-Princeton-Studies/dp/0691101345
But since you probably wont', here's the gist of it:

>The [Islamic] Republic’s constitution -- with 175 clauses -- transformed these general aspirations into specific inscribed promises. It pledged to eliminate poverty, illiteracy, slums and unemployment. It also vowed to provide the population with free education, accessible medical care, decent housing, pensions, disability pay and unemployment insurance....In the three decades since the revolution, the Islamic Republic -- despite its poor image abroad -- has taken significant steps toward fulfilling these promises. It has done so by giving priority to social rather than military expenditures, and thus dramatically expanding the Ministries of Education, Health, Agriculture, Labor, Housing, Welfare and Social Security. http://www.merip.org/mer/mer250/why-islamic-republic-has-survived

Abdel Bari Atwan is hardly a reliable source. William Perry is a much better source, but even he isn't sure "I believe that the Khobar Tower bombing was probably masterminded by Osama bin Laden," Perry said. "I can't be sure of that, but in retrospect, that's what I believe. At the time, he was not a suspect. At the time ... all of the evidence was pointing to Iran.". At the time Prince Nayef absolved Iran of involvement relations were improving between the two countries due to the election of Khatami. Kenneth Pollack, a former National Security Council official, states that by the time US and Saudi officials had evidence implicating Iran relations were thawing and they didn't want to rock the boat. http://www.amazon.com/The-Persian-Puzzle-Conflict-Between/dp/0812973364

Nonsense. You don't have to have a cleric involved at all, and furthermore the point is that any children born of such a union are deemed "legitimate" and must be taken care of, and furthermore,

>As Shahla Haeri revealed in her 1989 book, Law of Desire (published in the UK by I B Tauris), many muta contracts in Iran are transformed into permanent, loving relationships. Contrary to popular myth, it is usually not men but women, particularly divorcees and widows, who seek muta marriage. Haeri’s extensive survey showed that many older women approached “young men, particularly handsome ones, directly and frequently”.

http://www.amazon.com/Law-Desire-Temporary-Marriage-Contemporary/dp/0815624832/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1203007477&sr=8-1act this arrangement is used mostly by

Sigeh (in Farsi) is a form of temporary marriage and to the extent that it is actually practiced, usually by older women but often leads to lasting relationships. https://www.amazon.com/Law-Desire-Temporary-Contemporary-Paperback/dp/0815624832

This is a legal "boyfriend-girlfriend" relationship which specifies that any children born are legitimate and therefore entitled to care and inheritance etc. https://www.nytimes.com/2000/10/04/world/love-finds-a-way-in-iran-temporary-marriage.html

Here are all the local Amazon links I could find:


amazon.com

amazon.co.uk

amazon.ca

amazon.com.au

amazon.in

amazon.com.mx

amazon.de

amazon.it

amazon.es

amazon.com.br

amazon.nl

amazon.co.jp

amazon.fr

Beep bloop. I'm a bot to convert Amazon ebook links to local Amazon sites.
I currently look here: amazon.com, amazon.co.uk, amazon.ca, amazon.com.au, amazon.in, amazon.com.mx, amazon.de, amazon.it, amazon.es, amazon.com.br, amazon.nl, amazon.co.jp, amazon.fr, if you would like your local version of Amazon adding please contact my creator.

I feel that. I have a B.S. in Physics and have deliberately ignored most energy-related arguments on reddit so I don't have a stroke.

That said, it doesn't make you entirely wrong per se to suggest a call to action. But it is more nuanced than that - another poster in this thread discussed the frequent futility of active resistance in totalitarian regimes (of which Iran is not technically but some of the points apply). If you're genuinely interested in the subject of Iran, why it is the way it is, and why change there isn't going to happen overnight (even though it probably WILL happen), I recommend picking up a copy of The Ayatollah Begs to Differ. Quality read and a really good overview of the subject of modern Iranian culture with some insights into governance, civil society, feminist undertones, etc.

Well I think I did make factual claims, but I definitely didn't justify them to a sufficient extent. Here are a couple of books which develop the only possibly contentious claim, that the U.S. and U.K. backed overthrow of Mossadegh led inexorably to the Islamic revolution:

https://www.amazon.com/Iranians-Persia-Islam-Soul-Nation/dp/0452275636

https://www.amazon.com/All-Shahs-Men-American-Middle/dp/047018549X/ref=pd_rhf_dp_s_cp_1?_encoding=UTF8&pd_rd_i=047018549X&pd_rd_r=5WBGQ1NQ4PDPSE4R8MQQ&pd_rd_w=fJdqr&pd_rd_wg=rOgoA&psc=1&refRID=5WBGQ1NQ4PDPSE4R8MQQ

I apologise that I can't really go into depth on this topic myself; frankly I'm not knowledgeable enough to come close to doing the argument justice, and I have simply drawn my conclusions from the existing available scholarship, such as the above.

It should be noted, however, that this is not a particularly controversial position; I'm not a historian and haven't studied history beyond the undergraduate level, or modern history at all, but as far as I'm aware there aren't many academic sources that would contradict the claim that the overthrow of Mossadegh and the subsequent perception of the Shah as a Western lapdog were significant contributing factors to the revolution of '79.

Is there a part of the world you'd like to focus on? Fiction v. non-fiction?

I personally have always enjoyed reading Robert Kaplan and Michael J. Totten especially (Totten lived in Beirut in the 2000s).

It's definitely something you see across the literature. Many aspiring Imams and Mullahs would head to places like Karbala, Najaf, and Qom, and study from the various teachers there. Then, many would head off to various localities, often acting as a community leader with religious legitimacy. You can see some of this happening here:

Roy Mottahedeh - The Mantle of the Prophet: https://www.amazon.com/Mantle-Prophet-Roy-Mottahedeh/dp/1851686169

Did you know Amazon will donate a portion of every purchase if you shop by going to smile.amazon.com instead? Over $50,000,000 has been raised for charity - all you need to do is change the URL!

Here are your smile-ified links:

a History of Modern Iran

---

^^i'm ^^a ^^friendly bot

Context for the Iran comment can be found in All the Shah's Men, an excellent book about the 1953 CIA coup in Iran which is practically already the script for a movie directed by Billy Ray starring Aaron Eckhart as Kermit Roosevelt.

This is pretty much the definitive book on Iran-Contra scandal.

The author was the Independent Counsel appointed to investigate the affair.

> COLONIAL MODERNITY (COLONIALISM AND ITS AFTERMATH) OPERATED THROUGH THE CREATION OF RIGID DISTINCTIONS BETWEEN SELF AND OTHER...

Us vs Them.

A good quote came from the book The Persian Puzzle, where one British diplomat remarked to an American diplomat: "We English have had hundreds of years of experience on how to treat the Natives. Socialism is all right back home, but out here, you have to be the master."

The Persian Puzzle offers a good historical perspective on the history of democracy and Islam in Iran in particular, and the middle east in general.

I forget what I was watching, I think it was BBC Iran and the West they said the CIA never expected Khomeini to be able to take power. All the Shahs Men(http://www.amazon.com/All-Shahs-Men-American-Middle/dp/0470580410) is a wonderful book which covers the coup against mossadegh.

The one Mueller and co. hopefully write. I recently bought Firewall, written by the Iran-Contra prosecutor and really dig these inside looks at the process. They're meticulous in laying out the details.

Elements of Murder: A History of Poison

Ignore the pulpy cover, there's a lot of depth here.

Also:

The Shadow Factory

The Ayatollah Begs to Differ

Just started that last one. Seems ok so far, but the Amazon reviews are promising.

So it's clear to me that you don't really know all that much about Iran or the Iranian people, but I can suggest some reading material so that you can further educate yourself if you so choose to. I found these books to be quite informative.

1
2
3
4
5

I recommend "All The Shah's Men" before this, but if you still want more info afterwards

https://www.amazon.com/History-Modern-Iran-Ervand-Abrahamian/dp/0521528917/ref=cm_cr_arp_d_product_top?ie=UTF8

Here is the desktop version of your link

A couple to get you started...

Nikki Keddie, Modern Iran: Roots and Results of Revolution (updated 2006)

Roy Mottahedeh, The Mantle of the Prophet (2nd edition, 2008)

There is an excellent book titled "All The Shah's Men" that goes into great detail concerning this coup d'etat. The Anglo-Persian Oil Company (better known today as British Petroleum) had a lucrative deal with the Iranian government to share the vast majority of the oil earnings with foreign investors. But in 1951, the Iranian government voted to nationalize Iran's oil fields and more importantly, democratically elected Mohammed Mossadegh who fought against foreign companies. The Anglo-Persian Oil Company begged Winston Churchill to help and he reached out to the CIA. The CIA started the coup under Operation Ajax and the SIS started their own operation titled Operation Boot. This CIA led coup ended in 1953 with Mossadegh being deposed by a brutal dictator; Mohammed Rezi Pahlavi, the Shah of Iran.

Fun Factoids:

President Teddy Roosevelt's grandson, Kermit Roosevelt Jr. was the CIA's Directorate of Plans and senior coordinator for Operation Ajax.

Maj. Gen. Norman Schwarzkopf Sr., grandson of Gen. Herbert Norman Schwarzkopf Jr. and commander in chief of United States Central Command during the invasion of the Persian Gulf War, was sent by the CIA to persuade the Shah to return from exile. In addition, Schwarzkopf Sr. also trained the brutal paramilitary police force SAVAK whose torture methods ranged from electric shock, pulling of teeth, and pouring boiling water down the anus. After the 1979 revolution, SAVAK was dismantled but it is highly likely the SAVAK command and its methods were simply implemented under the new name SAVAMA.

You left out a very important piece of the story (I'm assuming this wasn't purposeful). The Shah was NOT installed by the Americans.

Mohammad Reza Shah (Pahlavi) assumed power in 1941, after his father was pushed out by the British & Soviets. During the period before the 'coup' (which wasn't in fact a coup), Iran functioned as a quasi-constitutional monarchy. Mossadegh was elected by the Majlis (Parliament) as PM, not president and not shah. Mossadegh was an ambitious man and pushed his power as far as he could, to the point of overstepping his rights as PM and leading the Shah (at the urging of the British) to seek his removal.

But the Shah was a coward, and was fearful of Mossadegh's popularity. So he asked for US help in ensuring Mossadegh's dismissal. When some of the military sided with Mossadegh, the Shah fled; this left Mossadegh as the highest-ranking official in Iran -- making him de facto leader.

For many reasons, Mossadegh was unacceptable as leader to the West (esp. the British), so another attempt to depose the PM was launched, under US orders. It resulted in the PM being forced to resign, and the Shah returned to his prior office. In other words, he was reinstalled. This distinction is important, as is the fact that Mossadegh was elected by the Parliament, not the people.

There's a good book on the subject, that gives the reader an exceedingly fair look at the 1953 crisis and Iranian history. It ends with some considerable bullshit, but everything else was well-written and researched.

They have completely different evolutionary origins, that's why they are different. Perhaps someone else can provide a better source than hearsay from my Persian friends, but Persians are Indo-Europeans and the two groups are closely related. Thus, Iranians are "racially" Caucasian. Even more, the language they speak (Farsi = Persian; Farsi != Arabic) is linguistically closer to French than it is to Arabic.

Now I'm really entering the area of which I'm unsure (so if I'm wrong, someone correct me!), but Persia was was one of the world's first superpowers, and for centuries it was the only superpower in the region now known as the Middle East. This empire saw its zenith under Xerxes (think 300, minus the hunchbacks and the naked women). The spread of Arabic culture and religion (Islam) came after the death of Mohammed (622 AD), and spread throughout the Middle East like wildfire. Thus, Persia ends up with its old language and race, but the "Arabic" religion/society.

It was up until World War II that "Persia" was known by that name, and one of the leaders changed it to "Iran" because they actually wanted to show solidarity with Hitler and his "Aryan" movement. Before you go making crazy connections about both "Aryan" groups to the Jews, remember that Iran had been a colony of the "Allied" powers since the 1800s, and therefore their association with the Axis was purely an attempt to free themselves from that situation, and Iran's current issues with the Jewish people are unrelated. Therefore, if your friend's family left Persia before it became Iran, it is likely that they would refer to themselves as "Persian." Also, many Persians do not want to associate themselves with the actions of the state of "Iran," and so refer to themselves as Persian. Either is correct; it's all about how they feel on the issue.

For a much more scientific look at the issue than mine, I definitely recommend The Persian Puzzle.

I really suggest you read this book

http://www.amazon.com/All-Shahs-Men-American-Middle/dp/0470580410

It is very informative on the subject and will inform you about all the politics that lead up to the 1953 coup.

Also fuck Kermit Roosevelt.

So crimes against humanity in the name of a religion are time sensitive? Or is there a statute of limitations on moral indignation?

There's a reason some of these people are very angry. We just typically see the end result and rarely how the atrocities began

I don't really see how Islam, as it is written, is any more violent than Christianity or Judaism, but for some reason, people separate the economic and political motivations from the religious ones, excuse the old motivations as being irrelevant, and leave a nice, neat little scapegoat with which the West can engage in a permanent war and gradual genocide.