The author is a pathetic, bitter, sad little man, and it comes through in this book.

Dabashi writes beautifully. There is no denying that. The narrative he utilizes seamlessly juxtaposes the literary, cinematic, and cultural history of contemporary Iran by contextualizing it vis-à-vis the political vicissitudes of recent Iranian history. However, Dabashi's greatest shortcoming can be traced to his training--he is not a political scientist and, as such, discredits many of his arguments by engaging in the type of polemics he so often criticizes others for. these arguments can be made without resorting to ad hominem attacks. They should stand on their merits, not by the ability to attack the character of another author. Reviews which assail Dabashi simply because he is of a different ideological persuasion should be dismissed out-of-hand. They are hack polemicists themselves without formal training in anything. Judging by some of the reviews, most of them have not even read his book. As a scholar of comparative literature, though, Dabashi is too often polemic. He is unable to separate ideology from his critical impulses. The book is more than worth reading, however. It stimulates discussion, provokes thought, is well written, and makes many valid points. Again, however, Dabashi compounds his laudable efforts by criticizing almost anything that is different from his view of the past and present. He resorts to criticizing, of all things, Wimbledon (the tennis tournament held annually in the UK). This is bordering inanity. Surprisingly, many of his political arguments are right on point. What problematizes, but not dooms, this book ultimately is his unremitting attack on superfluous and at best peripheral issues. Some of the authors he ridicules, such as Reza Aslan (for suggesting an Islamic Reformation), end up proving the points he was criticizing Aslan for in the first place. Dabashi argues that Shi'i Islam is politically bankrupt because its existence is contingent upon a revolutionary and activist political status. Once it attains power, it has subverted its core principles. Aslan ends with a similar conclusion but his narrative is different. Aslan may call it
"reformation" but semantics aside, it means the obsolescence of the religious in the political. Nevertheless, it is a very interesting read and I highly recommend it.

One day, one person brought this book to my attention, and I was unsure about content of the book, I presumed that this book was flaw and lacked historical merit. When that person told me that s/he would buy the book, I informed him/her that I would not buy this book due to my gut feelings.

Eventually, my friend the book, and s/he was in total disappointment, and passed the book to me. So, I can read this book and post a comment on amazon website.

This book is confession of left wing people in Iran particularly during period of 1979 Revolution in Iran that how the left wing groups in Iran had not attachment to Iran.

1. Dr. Hamdi Dabashi makes it clear that there is no such a country as Iran. According to him Iran is made of sub-nationals; such as, "Kurdish or Azeri cultures in order to corroborate the manufactured primacy of Iran." PG 21.
2. Author goes further and claims that "Iranist-native and foreigners alike-have at times opted for a fictive imperium called "the greater Iran," taking their clues from the imperial heritage of the Achaemenids (550-330 B.C.) and the Sassanids.
3. Author made an allegation that "Plato and Aristotle, "the Persians," as the Greek called them, were up in arms invading other people's lands, occupying their territories, and forming vast, useless, shapeless, and embarrassing empire." PG 22.
4. Cyrus the Great liberated Jewish people in same tone as George Bush liberating Iraqi people. PG 23.
5. Iranian people think that they are Iranian because of "the manufactured of a solitary national and nationalist historiography for Iran has been a principal product of a colonial and colonized imagination, falsely resting the pride of a people's place exclusively in the fabricated idea of a prolonged, uninterrupted, consistent and above all monarchic nation-state." PG 24. The bottom line, this author pervasively claims that there is no such a country as Iran and it is figment of imagination.
6. Author presents a thesis on two grounds. "Iran is the dialectical outcome of two diametrically, one pulling Iran asunder from the edges of its communal fears and the other focusing it on an imaginary center, a wishful gathering of its collective hopes." PG 27.
7. Author's core claim comes down to this point that "the only way out of this paralyzing paradox is narratively to emancipate Iranians from false and falsifying paradox between "tradition" and "modernity" by recasting Iran back to its regional geopolitics and the crosscurrent of cultures that have historically informed and dialectically sustained it". However, author earlier claims that Iran/Persia was figment of imagination and needs to be divided among sub-nationals.
8. Author claims that Safavid Dynasty destroyed Persian language. PG 36. This claim would be rejected by reading following books that Safavid dynasty contributed to Persian language and arts in Iran. 1. Safavid Iran: Rebirth of a Persian Empire (Library of Middle East History) 2. Mystics, Monarchs and Messiahs: Cultural Landscapes of Early Modern Iran (Harvard Middle Eastern Monographs)
9. Author continuously is using vulgar language against individuals that he does not like; such as, "one is dumbfounded today by its unsurpassed imbecility" PG 37.
10. Author needs learn from Howard Baskerville "you know you are not your own." "No", Baskerville responded, "I am Persia". PG 84.
11. Author is ambiguous on notion of modernity. He fails to polish and to define notion of modernity. It appears that he is discussing industrial revolution.
12. Author claims that when Khomeini died on June 03rd, 1989 anti-colonial movement died in Iran. PG 181.
13. Author has loyalty to Islamic Republic of Iran. "Though the United States and its allies did succeed in curtailing the spread of the Islamic Revolution and protecting their regional interests, they soon had ample reason to regret that success." PG 183.
14. Author claims that Reza Shah called himself "the father of the nation". However, after checking around, Reza Shah never made such a claim that he was the father of the nation. It is a well known historical fact that Cyrus the Great is father of Iran. PG 197.
15. Author claims that today Iran has democracy. "In Iran, we have a deeply flawed democracy. But it is a democracy. The ruling clerical elite is an entirely parasitical band of illegitimate and unelected theocrats-but they are integral to a political process that has generated a grassroots democracy." PG 225-226. However, it is fact that people in Iran vote with force and coercive method; such as, food coupon, school registration, enrolling in university, and so on.