Customer Reviews

The Great Satan vs. the Mad Mullahs: How the United States and Iran Demonize Each Other

5 star:		(7)
4 star:		(0)
3 star:		(0)
2 star:		(0)
1 star:		(1)

 

 

This is an excellent book. The author has a deep understanding of both American and Iranian culture. He argues persuasively that the conflict between Iran and the United States centers not on substantive differences but on symbolic discourse. In other words, he shows how ideology plays an important part in the formulation of both Iranian and American foreign policy.

The only caveat, as someone who studies American policy towards the states on the `other shore' of the Gulf, is that sometimes, in order to purport a symmetry in American and Iranian attitudes, the author overestimates the systemic nature of the communication problems between the two countries. A bona fide effort was exerted towards the end of the Clinton administration to break through the wall of incommunicability between the two nations. It is unfortunate that that particular occasion was missed, as was a parallel one being carried out with North Korea, and the situation is now very dangerous indeed. We assist at the `preparing of the ground' by op-ed writers and other neo-conservative pundits for possible military action against Iran.

At a broader level, irrespective of the subject matter of the book, what is amazing for a student of international relations is the level of insight to be gained by a judicious application of anthropology to the study of the bilateral relations of two states. The author, without entering the choppy waters and the tired controversies of International Relations theory, manages to illuminate the systemic nature of the rivalry between Iran and the United States. This approach could be fruitfully applied to many other disputes around the globe. The book is literally peppered with incredibly interesting observations about the nature of diplomacy in today's world and the importance of communication in the conduct of international relations. Each of them could be fruitfully expanded in a self-standing line of research and could be applied to other international disputes. All of this is written in a clear, jargon-free way that would put to shame many IR specialists (as well as some anthropologists). Even outside the boundaries of academia an educated lay reader can truly enjoy this book.

Overall, this is a really good book. It is certainly necessary reading for anyone interested in American and Iranian foreign policy. However, it is also to be recommended to scholars of international relations who do not focus on the Middle East because of its refreshing approach to the study of international politics. Finally, any concerned individual who is following current events would gain a lot by reading it.

Bill Beeman's new book, Great Satan vs. Mad Mullahs, How the United States and Iran Demonize Each Other, is one of the most important books published this year. In light of the pressing policy issues of the US-Iran impasse on nuclear energy, his book is decidedly on point in the evaluation of the Iranian response to U.S. rhetoric and punitive diplomatic maneuvering. In his informed and perceptive analysis, Beeman demonstrates how Iranian argument and expository patterns, while culturally determined, evoke an essential desire for self-respect. And regardless of Iran's economic ties or future petroleverage, it is a message which has found a significant following among many nations.

For those Americans (and Iranians) who desire a thorough, dispassionate and perceptive understanding of how our two nations are incapable of understanding one another, and how real communications can begin, this book is essential reading. It provides a world of understanding of two important cultures and their communications challenges.

Don Weadon

Beeman's book hits the nail on the head: The US and Iran should be seeking common interests instead of demonizing one another. This is a passionate analysis by someone who really knows both countries. Michael Rubin's review reveals him as a neo-con desperate to discredit Beeman, using ungentlemanly and anti-intellectual hyperbole. When he claims that there is nothing congruent to Iran's cry of "Death to America," he is conveniently forgetting about the Axis of Evil speech.

I heard Professor Beeman on National Public Radio and was deeply impressed with his understanding of Iranian culture. I later heard him on an Iranian radio station in Los Angeles speaking fluent, unaccented Persian (I am a native speaker), and talking about Iranian psychology. I couldn't believe what I was hearing, because he understood things that Iranians themselves don't understand. I bought this book the same day, and I was further astonished. This book tells it all. It is the sad story of two nations locked in a futile battle without meaning. It is sad, but it all hinges on understanding Iranian culture and American culture, and Professor Beeman is maybe the only person in the world with this knowledge. It is a brilliant book.

Beeman's book deserves to be read by everyone who cares about the United States and its absurd and debilitating war of words with Iran. That Michael Rubin, one of the most prominent of the ultra-neoconservatives and a well-known Iran-basher has gone out of his way to trash this excellent work is only proof of its importance. Rubin adopts a tactic seen in other American Enterprise Institute attacks on those who dare to question them. He starts with specious nit-picking, one imagines, to establish some kind of intellectual credentials, and then denounces Beeman's most trenchant points without a shread of support. A gratuitous insult is the cherry on this noxious sundae. Beeman has done a tremendous service to Americans by serving as a lone voice of reason to counter the flat-out lies and deception generated by the neoconservatives in their relentless push to force the United States into a war with Iran. However, he does more than that. He points out the weaknesses in the Iranian stance against the United States as well. Truth to tell, both sides behave badly, and Beeman deals with both sides. It is a shame that the book ended where it did, just after Mr. Ahmadinejad's election. Beeman seems hopeful that the Iranian president might turn out better than he has. I look forward to Professor Beeman's sequal to this fine book

I was becoming sick to death of the nonsense published on Iran until I read this great book--a true diamond among many lumps of coal. I lived in Iran as a Peace Corps volunteer many years ago and have been back many times since. I despaired of seeing anything in print that was even slightly close to the truth about the U.S.-Iranian relationship, or even vaguely authoritative. This book hits the nail squarely on the head. It is without a doubt the best thing ever written on this subject. The author, an anthropologist of distinction, is well known as one of the world's foremost experts on Iranian culture (his knowledge of Persian is legendary), and he more than proves it in this analysis. The core of Iranian and American cultures is laid bare here in a manner that is both sober and sympathetic to both nations. The big surprise for me was the applicability of this analysis to other cross-cultural communication situations (I also have worked in Africa and China). This is a very important book. Despite its high price (Publisher: a paperback, please!), I urge all Americans who care about the actions of the U.S. government and the future of the world to read this book and take its lessons to heart.

In the past few days the rhetoric between Iran and the United States has escalated once again. If Condoleezza Rice had read this book, she might not be able to stop this madness, but she would at least understand why Iran (and her anemic State Department) are continuing this dangerous brinkmanship. The phony post-Iraq flap over Iran's nuclear energy program is apparently only the latest skirmish in a 30 year history of such tit-for-tat garbage. Iran and the US are behaving like kindergarteners--and Beeman's book shows exactly why. This is an important book. (...)

In The "Great Satan" vs. the "Mad Mullahs," Brown University anthropologist Beeman laments that the "cultural dynamics" of the U.S.-Iranian relationship have for almost thirty years been beset by "mutual demonization." He seeks to prove this assertion, not with careful factual analysis, but rather with reliance on the post-modern theoretical constructs so popular in universities today.

However, his research is careless. He constructs his thesis with sweeping statements unsupported by evidence. In explaining Middle Eastern mythological figures, he argues that Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein modeled himself on `Umar, the third Muslim caliph (644-656 A.D.). But a study of Saddam's monumental art shows Sa'ad ibn Abi Waqqas, an early Arab warrior who brought Islam to Iran, to be his model.

Beeman stumbles over the most basic facts. Jerusalem is not "the second most sacred Muslim site"; Medina is. Jerusalem is not even mentioned in the Qur'an. He confuses recent history as well. He dismisses the accusation that Iran played a hand in the 1996 Khobar Towers bombing as a result of "the desire of the George W. Bush administration to link all attacks on U.S. facilities to a global terrorist network." But it was the Clinton administration that tied an Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps commander to those who carried out the attacks.

Beeman dismisses the possibility that the Islamic Republic might sponsor terrorism. He accuses U.S. defense secretary Donald Rumsfeld of fabricating the charge that Al-Qaeda operated in Iran. But the 9-11 Commission documented significant Iranian complicity. Likewise, to dismiss Iranian complicity in the Karine-A affair, he ignores the fact that the ship was loaded at an Iranian port, carried fifty tons of Iranian weaponry, and that both the captain of the ship and Palestinian Authority figures confessed to their part in the operation.

His footnotes are full of conspiratorial and faulty analysis. He wrongly suggests that "it is fairly certain" that the $3 million allocated by Congress to fund democratization in Iran was meant for the Mujahideen al-Khalq; in fact, it was earmarked for civil society groups operating inside Iran.

Beeman is even prone to fabrication: he argues that the American Enterprise Institute placed responsibility on Iran for faulty intelligence about Iraq's weapons of mass destruction but does not provide evidence to back that claim. He invents sources, citing a piece by this reviewer for the National Observer although I have never written for that publication.

He appears to have a special passion for condemning "neoconservatives" but uses the term carelessly, labeling as neoconservatives not only those policymakers and thinkers who seek to make democracy promotion a U.S. policy goal but also vocal opponents of U.S. democratization efforts. His criticism is often dishonest. He pillories "neoconservative" analysis marking `Ali Akbar Hashemi-Rafsanjani as the frontrunner in Iran's 2005 presidential elections. But in a Council on Foreign Relations interview prior to the election, he himself called Rafsanjani the "frontrunner."

The worst aspect of The "Great Satan" vs. the "Mad Mullahs" is the moral equivalency underpinning the book. To Beeman, Washington's complaints about Tehran are no different than Tehran's rhetoric about Washington. But isn't it possible that U.S. concerns about Iran's terror sponsorship are real? Likewise, there is no U.S. corollary to Iran's "Death to America" rallies and threats to "wipe [Israel] off the map." Neither would many Iranians agree with Beeman's apologia of Supreme Leader Ayatollah `Ali Khamene'i as a moderate consensus builder; nor would Iranian women recognize his assertion that their rights have improved.

The "Great Satan" vs. the "Mad Mullahs" is an embarrassment of polemic masquerading as a scholarly study. That Beeman is director of Middle East Studies at Brown University is another sad testament to the state of the field.

Middle East Quarterly, Spring 2006