All the Shah's Men attempts something seen but rarely accomplished in such an insightfully brilliant composition. Covering the events of the Anglo-Iranian oil embroilment, Stephen Kinzer attempts to take a neutral position on the ordeal but careful juxtaposition of events and seemingly minor inadvertent details hints otherwise. It must be realized that there is nothing in this text that is thrown casually together or without cause; the subject material is intrinsically complex: the very thought of organizing a tale as historically convoluted as this one seems a near incomprehensible act. It leaves only the conclusion, then, that every clause is carefully chosen and every concept lent an overarching purpose. Stephen Kinzer has taken to the high hills of neutrality while also subtly imparting his own thoughts from its grounds.

However that is not to say that he implants a wholly biased view. No, in fact there is a masterful genius in the way that he presents both sides of the issue without asking the audience outright to make judgement on either side. It should be noted that this is hard not to: one would find it difficult to read on the roots of what has amounted to a country's centuries old struggle for stable government and national unity. But, fortunately, it is not required of the reader to take any such stance. Indeed, it is not until the very end that any sort of analysis is even attempted. Then, too, Kinzer remains aloof behind the analysis of other historians of which he quotes extensively and interjects only to raise possible quandaries that they - not he - expose.

It is difficult to describe just who Kinzer is trying to reach here but it stands apparent that the man is passionate about his subject and wishes to get word out. At its core, All the Shah's Men is a tale of misunderstandings, stubborn actions, and lost opportunities. The novel details the U.S.'s involvement in a coup overthrowing Iran's revolutionary, progressive leader at the time Mohammad Mossadegh. While popular in his home country for nationalizing the oil industry, he ran afoul British (and consequently American) interests with his actions. Replacing him was Reza Shah who was seen mostly as the U.S.'s puppet government. Needless to say, this has caused what can only be understated as constant strife in the region and involved countries' relations. Kinzer ties this tale into coherency with an air of moralistic impassivity. What passes in his book is intriguing, disheartening, and as he is quick to remind - above all historically accurate. One feels that, upon closing the final chapters they have uncovered a great virtuosity and reached a profound understanding of often muddy governmental policies. If anything, one knows that they have definitely been handed a guide on how not to run foreign policy.

There is the implied concession on the advantages of hindsight, but then again, there is too that implied (however not always limited to such subtlety) concept that pigheadedness - easily identifiable during the run of its course - was, too, a large contributing factor.

All the Shah's Men succeeds not only because of its well accomplished attempts to organize often baffling quandries of political events, but also because of its effective use of what can best be described as stratification. While it would have been easy to cop to dividing the social castes inherent in the Anglo-Iranian crisis (and a major fuel to the lasting bitterness) Kinzer instead identifies the many overlaying sociological strata of the issue. We are given an overview of the issues highly charged history rife with symbols of religious martyrdom and political tension. The apparent psychological epidermis of the crisis is tilled handily before delving more into the heart of the issue in an effort of attaining an all-encompassing understanding. Without pandering to superficial conclusions or extraneous events, he gives us the breadth of the situation with a vision of multi-layered depth often gone unseen with such wells of temperance.

The ball is missed in a few spots, though. His straight-line recount of events feels empty at times as the mechanical linkage of occurrences leads to a concise - however dry - tale. As aforementioned, the balance of fact and opinion however much implied by Kinzer or falsely placed by the reader, is an unbalanced mix that somewhat detracts from the ruminative insights that he is oft to make.

However these moments stand of a minor importance in the larger, venturous message of Shah's Men. Nor do they slow down the rather fast-paced events of international spy intrigue permeating the Anglo-Iranian crisis. To this effect, Kinzer has drafted a book that will appeal not only to history buffs and political enthusiasts, but to those who would most usually find such subjects to be rather a boring and stuffy read. Kinzer is sure to make the matter of the past an engrossing issue of the now and foreign policy not only a matter of moralistic integrity of government but also one of personal responsibility. As indicated by All the Shah's Men's bestseller status, the people - people of the government - are clearly willing to listen. And, perhaps, that is all Kinzer really wants.

As an American who spent two years in Tehran during the 1950's, I was much aware of the impact of the coup and its immediate aftermath that is described Kinzer's book. It puts my memories of the time and the people into a excellent history and adds information about the coup that was not known to me. Working at the university I was aware of the bitterness of the people that I knew--students, faculty, business people and ministry employees. They were skeptical that any good could come from relations with the U.S., though they were always friendly to me and my family. Through Kinzer's book I have a better understanding of the events that followed the overthrow of Mossadegh, even unto today.

I have to say I am troubled by the many reviewers who say they loved this book, except for the idea that America's actions could have possibly contributed to the hatred anyone feels toward us. To say there is a connection is not the same as saying we deserved it, and the author by no means makes any suggestion that 9/11 was something reasonable or deserved. To deny the connection is to go blind into today's events.

Growing up in America, I was never told that the Iran hostage crisis was related to Jimmy Carter's willingness to shelter the deposed Shah after the 1979 revolution. I think it's pretty clear that the same hatred toward America that was behind that crisis played a significant part in leading up to 9/11 as well. This book helps explain how America's role in proping up the Shah contributed, however unintentionally, to the rise to power of radicalism in that region.

The book focuses on a few characters who played significant roles in the events in order to make the story more personal and interesting. To bring in all the issues of the times, or try to cover all the significant players in detail, even on the American side, would have probably made the story unreadable. The result is a highly readable and generally fascinating history.

The book also spends time explaining, briefly, the larger history of Iran and the reasons why Iran's branch of Islam is different from other branches. This serves to bring the events of 1953 into much clearer perspective. This section is inserted into the middle of the main narrative, and I was impressed by how much richness and depth the remainder seemed to acquire with the new knowledge gained.

You might also want to read "Legacy of Ashes", for a broader history of the CIA's questionable attempts to influence world events. I would also recommend "Overthrow", which has a section devoted to the events in Iran, but with more of an emphasis on the role of the Dulles brothers in guiding the CIA's decisions and policy.

fascinating read. great intro to Iranian history from ancient times to modern. Very in-depth and enlightening as well. British colonial arrogance and American tunnel vision lead to overthrow of the first democratic government in the Middle East. No analysis of today's Iran-American clash is complete without understanding the root of the friction.

The UK-US overthrow of Mossadegh was clearly one of the worst foreign policy moves in our history. It parallels the simlar Eisenhower directed overthrow of Guatemala's democratic leader Arbenz, for which we still pay.But the conclusion that the Iran move is at the "root of Middle East terror" is not IMO correct. That root stems from Palestine which most of the world views as a kind of concentration camp run by Israel with the aggressive support of the United States. Until we resolve that issue, the so called War on Terror is futile.
Discl: Viking(member American Assoc of Petroleum Geologists)

An easily read account of the U.S. and British actions to overthrow the Iranian Prime Minister in 1953 that lead to the entrenchment of the Shah in Iran and ultimately to the Iranian Revolution. This book provides a great perspective from both sides in this action and is a great warning to the hazards of unintended consequences when getting involved in the internal affairs of foreign governments.

Highly recommend to anyone who wants to understand the origins of Iranian mistrust of the U.S. government and thier actions in the Middle East.

I am deeply embarrassed; when I saw this title in my account history I had no recollection of it. It only took me a few words of reviewing it here to remember. This book should be required reading in all of our government bodies that have anything to do with policy making, especially foreign policy, it should also be in our school curriculums. I cannot testify to the veracity of anything written in this book beyond one thing, the overthrow of Mossadegh is a significant reason for anti Amrikayi sentiment in Iran. Elsewhere other author(s) have claimed that Shia Iran is the backbone of Islamic unrest region and/or worldwide. This book very clearly spells out how captalism as practiced by our "military industrialist" cabal that rules American society has destroyed any chance that the mouthings of their current "Puppet in Chief" about spreading democracy will have even the slightest credibility anywhere outside of their own boardrooms and in the minds of brainwashed Americans who are foolish enough to still believe anyone in power in this country still tells them anything resembling the truth.

Fascinating story, well-organized, told in an engaging way. This book provides a great deal of insight into the roots of the current situation in Iran.