For the person who knows nothing about the socio-political relationship with Iran Bitter Friends Bosom Enemies is useful. Slavin nicely lays out a basic history of the current diplomatic tensions. That being said there are a few things that caused me to be suspicious that she was trying to persuade the american reader towards her own political inclination. I prefer writers to own up to their own opinions rather than try and pass off their work as unbiased.

Any time she cites statistics compairing the U.S. and Iran the numbers are given in differing formats. For one to understand what what the numbers mean one must pull out a calculator to make comparison possible. It is like giving one set of numbers in feet and another in meters; they are both measures of distance but until they share the same unit type the numbers are difficult to understand.

Aside from the nitpicking about her presentation of statistics it occurs to me she may not be the best person to report on a place like Iran. The Iranian bias against women is well known she even writes about it in her book. A female perspective of Iran is admittedly interesting but, how is it that we are supposed to beleive a foreign woman reporter is going to persuade the chauvinistic leaders of Iran to respect her and give her straight answers? I feel that if Iran is as anti-womens rights as she leads the reader to beleive, am male reporter would be a much better source for information. She seems to be forcing her femininity and the rights she enjoys in the U.S. onto a people who are known to be uncomfortable with such freedoms. If the U.S. and Iran have a tenous relationship a male reporter might have a better chance of being accepted because at least his gender wouldn't be added interferece to relationships already difficult.

I question one point more, her call for direct talks between the U.S. and Iran. Direct talks may, or may not, be a good idea. However, she doesn't touch on any of the reasons the U.S. might have for being uninterested in such action. Given that the only reason one would read this book is to gain a better understanding of the current situation, more ballanced converage of this particular issue would be usefull.

I first learned about this book during one of the author's fairly frequent C-Span interviews. The book is as well written and presented as her C-Span interviews are thoughtful and eloquent. She packs a great deal of information into a relatively short, 200+ pages, book. The book is well worth the effort to read, whether you are relatively unread on the subject or better informed.

She points out, as others have done, that Iran is a very young and very Westernized country. Although the clerics have the upper hand in the halls of government, they hardly have the upper hand with the predominantly young men and women on the streets. Their eyes, for the most part, look to something other than Shia fundamentalism for excitement and inspiration. This should be good news to Western readers. Although, young Iranians' drug and alcohol problems are truly lamentable, it is somewhat re-assuring that they are more--"like us." Not, for the most part, frothing at the mouth jihadists eager to disembowel and burn Americans. Such caricatures are the stuff of Fox news, neo-con spokesmen, and other various shades of political hucksters on the right.

The author presents a strong case through interviews and corroborative supporting evidence that the Iranian people--the young in particular--do not want war with the US. Instead, they want a better, more modern and prosperous life. Bombing these people will do nothing but play into the hands of the fundamentalist clerics. Intelligent diplomacy with the skilled use of carrots and sticks (preferably of the non-bomb variety) should be the most fruitful approach with this country. An approach which she obviously endorses....

She goes into some detail of describing the complexities of the very idiosyncratic political structure in Iran. For me, it was a very informative presentation of this aspect of Iran. Hopefully, more people will read it in the upcoming months and add their voices in opposition to any Iranian military adventures by Bush and Cheney during the waning months of their administration. Highly recommended.

The fine line between reporting and analysis has blurred in the age of the 24-hour news cycle. As reporters seek celebrity and write books, they not only describe but also judge and perhaps influence events. Some journalists do this well: New York Times correspondent Michael Gordon provided masterful insight into planning for the Iraq war in Cobra II.[1] But Robin Wright of the Washington Post and Elaine Sciolino of the New York Times, failed, writing books on Iran whose predictions and analysis, with hindsight, appear silly. With Bitter Friends, Bosom Enemies, Slavin, USA Today senior diplomatic correspondent, falls into this latter category.

While Slavin hopes to flesh out the ups-and-downs of U.S.-Iran relations, her book instead becomes a mechanism by which former State Department policy planning director Richard Haass, Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage, and former CIA official Flynt Leverett play out grievances. She also relies upon Trita Parsi, an Iran lobbyist who trades on his close ties to the Islamic Republic. In integrating their tales, Slavin displays little understanding of how the White House and the National Security Council work. Rather, she channels the State Department without adequate fact-checking or even an understanding of what is plausible and what is not.

Thus, she writes that the Bush administration spurned an Iranian offer to settle outstanding grievances in 2003, but as proof, she cites a document not authored by the Islamic Republic but rather by a freelancing Swiss diplomat, Tim Guldimann, and conveyed via unclassified fax and without letterhead. When Iranian officials saw what the proposal said, they did not agree with much of it and never mentioned it when they held bilateral talks with their U.S. counterparts; Slavin appears unaware that Armitage, whom she suggests found promise in the Iranian offer, subsequently disavowed it in an interview.[2] Whether Armitage changed his story or Slavin cherry-picked quotes to support her thesis, the episode suggests she did not evaluate sources with the skepticism suitable to a journalist.

Slavin also displays a shallow understanding of Iranian power structures, showing little understanding of the mechanisms of the Supreme Leader's office and control and misunderstanding just how deeply committed the reformist bloc is to theocracy.

The author confuses both technical issues and chronology. She blames the U.S. decision to invade Iraq for the acceleration of Iran's nuclear program although the bulk of Iranian nuclear development occurred prior--indeed, under the "pragmatist" government of President Ali Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani and the "reformist" government of his successor Muhammad Khatami.

Bitter Friends, Bosom Enemies will be popular, for Slavin writes well and will please some with the moral equivalence of her narrative and by blaming the White House for deteriorating U.S.-Iranian relations.

Michael Rubin
Middle East Quarterly
Spring 2008

1. New York: Pantheon, 2006.
2. Richard Armitage, former deputy secretary of state, interview, PBS Frontline, July 12, 2007.

Bosom Enemies, Bitter Friends is an excellent book not only for people who have spent a lifetime studying Iran, but also for the educated person who may understand foreign relations, but really know little about Iran and what governs its relations with the U.S. The book is encyclopedic in terms of the amount of information that is packed into it, everything from how both sides have squandered opportunities to the current regime to the development of Iranian youth culture. One cannot but learn 100% more than when one started. A must read for anyone who wants to really understand Iran (not what the media and/or administration want us to believe). With any luck, the sequel is in progress.

I am not writing this hoping for your postive vote on my review. I am writing it to urge each of you to read this book. The reviewers below have done an eloquent job, and I wholly support their assessments. This topic is too important to let slide. If you are on this page, you already have an interest in and an awareness of foreign affairs. Read the reviews below, then read this book. Please.

This book is a timely journalistic account that provides some insight into the enigma of Iran. During the late 70s Iran rose to the top of the news in the United States when as a reaction to the Westernizing influences of the Shah, Ayatollah Khomeini rose to power, referred to the U.S. as the "Great Satan", American hostages were taken, and Iranians demonstrated in the streets chanting "death to America". There followed a period of relative silence during which Iran tried to mend itself after the ravages of the Iran-Iraq War and then actually reform itself during the Khatami presidency. Lately, it has risen again to prominence in the news, this time as the bugaboo of the Bush Administration, as part of the "axis of evil".

The author made a series of visits to Iran starting in 1996, and has structured this book principally on the basis of her observations, interviews with Iranian and American officials, and talks with ordinary Iranians. What we get here is a picture of a country that has a very tangled government - the author compares it to an American square dance - in which the ultimate arbiter is the supreme religious leader, the Ayatollah Khamenei. Though some change has occurred (notably during Khatami's presidency and as a result of globalization) and there are some democratic elements, Iran is still a very long way from having any clear separation between the state and an authoritarian religion. The Shiite form of Islam dominates and tries to extend its influence to other parts of the Middle East such as Iraq and Lebanon. The Iranian city of Qom, the "mullah factory", is along with Najaf in Iraq the center of Shiite Islam; and is described as something like a medieval enclave where religious law is rigorously taught and applied. This religion is steeped in the masculine Old Testament tradition of the desert, in which woman are largely excluded. It's myths feature the twelfth Imam, a Messianic figure who will return some day to save believers.

During the Clinton Administration diplomatic overtures were made to Iran, small steps taken with quite a lot of discretion in view of terrorist acts attributed to the Iranian Revolutionary Guard. Those overtures gained momentum when President Khatami took office and the "death to America" signs started coming down. After 9/11 Iran responded with sympathy and held candlelight vigils, unlike other Islamic countries. At that point, the United States had much in common with Iran: Saddam Hussein and the Taliban were both mutual enemies; Iran had fought a war against Saddam and almost gone to war with the Taliban. And, in fact, Iran cooperated with the U.S. aims in Afghanistan and provided assistance to the Northern Alliance in turning back the Taliban. It could have been a perfect time to establish diplomatic relations, but the Bush Administration was too busy exerting its dominance. Bush proceeded to label Iran as part of an "axis of evil". Then, the Administration squandered an opportunity for peaceful engagement when they rejected an Iranian initiative in 2003. Instead of an ally they now had an enemy whom they empowered by taking out a common enemy Saddam and freeing the Iraqi Shiites. The occupation of Iraq also convinced the Iranians that the U.S. only had belligerent intentions, and that they were quite probably next on the list of countries to be invaded. With that threat at their door, they elected the right wing hardliner Ahmadinejad, who has since denied the Holocaust and threatened the development of nuclear technology, and who sees the world in the narrow way that the American President does when he says that countries are either with us or against us. So, here we have two leaders on opposite sides, but both convinced that they are on the side of the forces of light against the forces of darkness, as in the old Persian Zoroastrian myth.

This book is a timely journalistic account that provides some insight into the enigma of Iran. During the late 70s Iran rose to the top of the news in the United States when as a reaction to the Westernizing influences of the Shah, Ayatollah Khomeini rose to power, referred to the U.S. as the "Great Satan", American hostages were taken, and Iranians demonstrated in the streets chanting "death to America". There followed a period of relative silence during which Iran tried to mend itself after the ravages of the Iran-Iraq War and then actually reform itself during the Khatami presidency. Lately, it has rose again to prominence in the news, this time as the bugaboo of the Bush Administration, as part of the "axis of evil".

The author made a series of visits to Iran starting in 1996, and has structured this book principally on the basis of her observations, interviews with Iranian and American officials, and talks with ordinary Iranians. What we get here is a picture of a country that has a very tangled government - the author compares it to an American square dance - in which the ultimate arbiter is the supreme religious leader, the Ayatollah Khamenei. Though some change has occurred (notably during Khatami's presidency and as a result of globalization) and there are some democratic elements, Iran is still a very long way from having any clear separation between the state and an authoritarian religion. The Shiite form of Islam dominates and tries to extend its influence to other parts of the Middle East such as Iraq and Lebanon. The Iranian city of Qom, the "mullah factory", is along with Najaf in Iraq the center of Shiite Islam; and is described as something like a medieval enclave where religious law is rigorously taught and applied. This religion is steeped in the masculine Old Testament tradition of the desert, in which woman are largely excluded. It's myths feature the twelfth Imam, a Messianic figure who will return some day to save believers.

During the Clinton Administration diplomatic overtures were made to Iran, small steps taken with quite a lot of discretion in view of terrorist acts attributed to the Iranian Revolutionary Guard. Those overtures gained momentum when President Khatami took office and the "death to America" signs started coming down. After 9/11 Iran responded with sympathy and held candlelight vigils, unlike other Islamic countries. At that point, the United States had much in common with Iran: Saddam Hussein and the Taliban were both mutual enemies; Iran had fought a war against Saddam and almost gone to war with the Taliban. And, in fact, Iran cooperated with the U.S. aims in Afghanistan and provided assistance to the Northern Alliance in turning back the Taliban. It could have been a perfect time to establish diplomatic relations, but the Bush Administration was too busy exerting its dominance. Bush proceeded to label Iran as part of an "axis of evil". Then, the Administration squandered an opportunity for peaceful engagement when they rejected an Iranian initiative in 2003. Instead of an ally they now had an enemy whom they empowered by taking out a common enemy Saddam and freeing the Iraqi Shiites. The occupation of Iraq also convinced the Iranians that the U.S. only had belligerent intentions, and that they were quite probably next on the list of countries to be invaded. With that threat at their door, they elected the right wing hardliner Ahmadinejad, who has since denied the Holocaust and threatened the development of nuclear weapons, and who sees the world in the narrow way that the American President does when he says that countries are either with us or against us. So, here we have two leaders on opposite sides, but both convinced that they are on the side of the forces of light against the forces of darkness.

Slavin's book is very interesting. This book provides an insight to many of Iran's leaders, clerics and governmental. She does give the reader a sense of the people of Iran and their desire for peace. She points out the inner turmoil within Iran on the duality of leadership; those who are liberals with the desire for western ideas, dress and democracy and those who are hard liners with religious convictions. Ms. Slavin points out the frustration of the Clinton and Bush administration in trying to negotiate dialog and meaningful relations with Iran, however, she also points out the underlying mistrust between the U.S. and Iran. Of course, much of the mistrust goes back in history to 1979 and also the spoken words or unspoken words between the two countries. She points out that the "Axis of Evil" speech of President Bush may have done more damage to relations than some may have thought.
This book is well written, documented and a must read if understanding the middle east, Iran's role there and in the world is important.

How many Americans know how the Iranian system of government works? Are Americans aware that Iran's population is mostly under thirty and restless? Do Americans realize that Iran is more complex than their mere portrayal as an Islamic fascist state? One wonders if Americans have thought about the internal dynamics of Iranian society? Sadly, most Americans don't realize that a hunger for democratic reform exists in Iranian society and war will likely only rally their people to the regime which oppresses them.

Our newspapers, television, radio and online sources are busy quoting outrageous statements from the Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and America's fear about their nuclear program. Jingoistic sound-bites on both sides have dwarfed sensible, thoughtful and fact based commentary.

Thankfully, Barbara Slavin has written a book that presents a holistic view we Americans are typically not exposed too. Using her remarkable access to people such as Madeline Albright, Condelezza Rice, Iranian reformers like former President Mohammad Khatami, longtime establishment figures such as Ali Rafsanjani, as well as dissidents like Akbar Ganji and everyday citizens, allows Slavin to shed sunlight on a nation most Americans know very little about. She was the first newspaper journalist to interview Iranian President Ahmadinejad.

We also learn about the tantalizing opportunities for reconciliation not seized by three successive American administrations.

Overall, Slavin's prose is anecdotal but fact based. Her book makes truth accessible and truth about Iran has been in short supply. Hopefully, her book will also make truth fashionable again.

For more information about Slavin's book and insights into Iran, listen to a podcast interview I had with her at the weblog, Intrepid Liberal Journal.

With all the mounting talk about a possible war with Iran, "Bitter Friends and Bosom Enemies" is a must read for anyone concerned about the misguided direction of the current Administration's foreign policies. The author has obviously spent a lot of time in Iran and she takes the reader there with her in this insightful, lively and well-written book. Much is written in the news these days about the threat Iran poses, but little if any of it explains why. This book helps to fill that gap, increasing the reader's understanding of the country, its people and, as the author puts it, the complicated "square dance" of Iranian politics. Most importantly for Americans, it shows how the clash of two faith-based foreign policies--Tehran's and Washington's--is setting our two countries on a tragic and needless path to confrontation. Highly recommended!