Although Confronting Iran has some merits (albeit only a few), the shortcomings of this book are what unfortunately stand out. Had I not just finished Trita Parsi's book Treacherous Alliance: The Secret Dealings of Israel, Iran, and the United States, I would have reacted more favorably to Ansari's book, but at the end of the day, if you're only going to read one book concerning Iran and the U.S., there is absolutely no excuse to pick up Confronting Iran.

To begin, the title is somewhat misleading. It implies a history of the interaction between the U.S. and Iran, which is not necessarily what you'll find. A little more than halfway through the book, it seems as if the title was merely an attempt to grab attention in order to sell more copies since Iran is in the news as much as it is. A large part of the book focuses on domestic Iranian politics. This is only problematic because it strays from what the book allegedly sets out to do, and in any case, the author doesn't convincingly connect the domestic parts of the book to the overall theme. One of the highlights of the book is the context provided behind Ahmadinejad's election and that it was not the result of the Iranian public overwhelmingly choosing him, but rather that fraud was rampant, and that with four reformist candidates also running, the splitting of their votes helped a hard-liner come to office.

Something that made me wary of the domestic Iranian portions of the book though, is that Ansari's narrative of the relationship between the U.S. and Iran was nothing more than a rehashing of conventional wisdom. Again, had I not just read Parsi's book, this would not have seemed as glaringly obvious, but the contrast between the two books are nothing short of stunning. One of the reasons for this is the absence of much in the way of cited sources in Ansari's book. He seems like he's just taking the accepted narrative of these events and not really examining them. Parsi, on the other hand, went to great lengths to interview as many participants as possible, providing a much more complete picture of the subject in about the same amount of pages. I felt as if I learned something important on every page of Parsi's book. Confronting Iran however, couldn't be farther from that feeling. I felt as if I learned very little new information. Considering the complexity of the subject, it seems pointless to provide such a bland narrative.

The only real audience for this book is the type of person that knows absolutely nothing about the subject, and kind of wants to get a basic idea of how things unfolded. People well-versed in the subject will find very little of interest in this book unfortunately. Ansari deserves credit for trying to foster a dialogue or a greater understanding of the subject, but the bulk of the book fails to live up to these aims. The only place where he attempts to go beyond conventional wisdom is his comparison of some of the hard-line elements in Iran to the neoconservatives in the U.S. It's kind of a lazy comparison, that isn't really accurate in anything other than a very broad context. This approach unfortunately is characteristic of the book as a whole. For a book that is more or less the same length, Confronting Iran fails to even remotely compare to Parsi's Treacherous Alliance.

Well written book. Breaks down the history of Iran and the way our policies shaped our present views of the country.

Within the pages of Confronting Iran one may find an excellent history on the Iranian relationship with multiple world power players. The policies of the United States and Britain, and to a lesser degree Iraq and Russia, are prominently and intricately worked over.

Another product of this reading is a respect for the sovereignty of this ancient nation and her idyllic peoples. It isn't difficult to accept a 'West is Best' mentality when you've known nothing else.

With praise appropriately placed for Mr. Ansari's accomplishment in Confronting Iran, it is appropriate to note that his affections are by no means hidden or misunderstood. The sympathetic viewpoints of the author lend to an overshadowing question! Where are we going?

Perhaps it is just too difficult to accept, at face value, the submissions of a learned man that opens his writing with the following statements. " It is generally accepted that all nations and states are rooted in a series of foundation myths...". " A good example in the United States is the myth of the Founding Fathers and the American Revolution...". Little more need be said.