by Barbara Slavin
|
| List Price: | $24.95 |
| Amazon Price: | $18.21 & eligible for FREE Super Saver Shipping on orders over $25. |
| You Save: | $6.74 (27%) |
| Average Rating: |  |
| Lowest New Price: | $8.50 |
| Availablitiy: | Usually ships in 24 hours |
|
 |
|
Product Description
With lucid analysis and engaging storytelling, USA Today senior diplomatic correspondent Barbara Slavin portrays the complex love-hate relationship between Iran and the United States. She takes into account deeply imbedded cultural habits and political goals to illuminate a struggle that promises to remain a headline story over the next decade. In this fascinating look, Slavin provides details of thwarted efforts at reconciliation under both the Clinton and Bush presidencies and opportunities rebuffed by the Bush administration in its belief that invading Iraq would somehow weaken Iran's Islamic government. Yet despite the dire situation in Iraq, the Bush administration appears to be building a case for confrontation with Iran based on the same three issues it used against Saddam Hussein's regime: weapons of mass destruction, support for terrorism, and repression of human rights. The U.S. charges Iran is supporting terrorists inside and outside Iraq and is repressing its own people who, in the words of U.S. officials, “deserve better.” Slavin believes the U.S. government may be suffering from the same lack of understanding and foresight that led it into prolonged warfare in Iraq.
One of the few reporters to interview Iranian president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, as well as his two predecessors and scores of ordinary Iranians, Slavin gives insight into what the U.S. government may not be taking into account. She portrays Iran as a country that both adores and fears America and has a deeply rooted sense of its own historical and regional importance. Despite government propaganda that portrays the U.S. as the "Great Satan," many Iranians have come to idolize staples of American pop culture while clinging to their own traditions. This is clearly not a relationship to be taken a face value. The interplay between the U.S. and Iran will only grow more complex as Iran moves toward becoming a nuclear power. Distrustful of each other's intentions yet longing at some level to reconcile, neither Tehran nor Washington know how this story will end.
Customers who bought this item also bought
Average Customer Review:
0 of 1 people found the following review helpful:
 Informative but short on analysis, 2008-09-02
Mrs. Slavin clearly has done her research with dozens of interviews with high profile Iranian government officials to shed light on the complex interplay among the dizzying array of factions within the Iranian government influencing domestic and international politics. Chief in political influence and power among these various factions is the Revolutionary Guards, of which the current president, Mr. Ahmadinejad is a member of.
"Bitter Friends, Bosom Enemies" begins with a decades old history between the U.S. and Iran, but focuses on milestones from the Clinton administration to George W.'s and the impending nuclear issue.
Mrs. Slavin hints that military confrontation with Iran can only complicate matters in the volatile region of the Middle East, as Iran has spread its influence far beyond its borders. She also acknowledges that a nuclear armed Iran is not in anyone's interest but Iran's.
Perhaps the greatest moment to reign in the government of Iran was missed at the immediate conclusion of the U.S.-Iraq war II, when Iran was astounded at how expeditiously the U.S. toppled Saddam's regime in three weeks when Iran's own attempt after eight years of war was unsuccessful. Rife with successes in Afghanistan and Iraq, the Bush administration refused to engage Iran, only to lose much of its negotiating power as the situation in Iraq went to colossal $hit.
Mrs. Slavin does an excellent job of providing the necessary background information on how to approach the seemingly unsolvable nuclear issue with Iran.
Mrs. Slavin's work, however, is more reporting than analytical. Absent is any recommendation or insight on how the rift over the nuclear issue between the U.S.-Israel and Iran, which has strong implications for the world economy, and particularly the Middle East, can be resolved. Much of the speculation of how events will transpire and what approach the U.S. should take in the nuclear dispute is left to the reader.
0 of 3 people found the following review helpful:
 Neoconservative Agitprop, 2008-08-20
Barbara Slavin's book is disappointing in that the author's excellent prose begins to be bogged down by too much propaganda in the third chapter, about Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, the President of Iran. While reading the first two chapters, I noticed that the book generally applauded any action in Iran's history that was in favor of women. This seems OK, because the author was merely showing her point of view. She also reflected the arbitrariness of George Bush's designation of Iran in the "Axis of Evil", and the scariness of Air Force plans to attack Iran from the air. However in the third chapter it becomes apparent that the author finds no need to be fair. She clearly doesn't like Ahmadinejad because he is a Muslim religious conservative, and loses all sense of fairness in her reporting, tending toward the neoconservative line that Middle Eastern regimes that are not pro-U.S. are our enemies, and must be confronted, if only through slanted reporting.
This becomes obvious in her personal opinion of Ahmadinejad's appearance. The president of Iran is known for his almost rock star good looks, thin healthy carriage, his trademark simple work clothes, and a small neatly trimmed beard. However, to Slavin, he is apparently one of the ugliest men in the world, because she feels the need to impress this upon the reader. "Plain, almost shabby, clothing is one of Ahmadinejad's trademarks, signifying that he is a man of the people. His scraggly, poorly trimmed beard is another." And "Upper-class residents of north Tehran ridiculed Ahmadinejad for his scruffy appearance".
The other case of her using her political agenda to color her reporting is in her poor use of facts to butress her overreaching neoconservative opinions, as can be seen by researching her footnotes. "Despite his decisive win over Rafsanjani, the new president was still chosen by less than 37 percent of eligible voters - not exactly an overwhelming mandate." Looking up the footnote reference to an article by Siamak Namazi, we find that Namazi was entirely approving of Ahmadinejad's strong showing, and that the footnote only refers that she used Namazi's article to do the math resulting in "37 percent of eligible voters", a statistic that is never used by the media in the United States to show how poor a politician's mandate is. This is merely and example of the degree to which Bitter Friends, Bosom Enemies descends to being pure propaganda, or worse.
Another excellent example of misrepresentative reporting is the sentence, "During frequent trips to Iran's provinces, Ahmadinejad was inundated with letters from poor and desperate Iranians seeking solutions for the personal problems." Slavin would have us believe that Iranian suffering knows no bounds, because people are spontaneously pleading for political mercy, but when you check the footnote reference, a Washington Post article by Karl Vick, you find out that the letters are actual summoned by the president:
"The ordinary Iranians who poured into the local soccer stadium to hear President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad one day last month arrived carrying high hopes and handwritten letters. They left with just the hopes. The letters were collected in oversize cardboard boxes, then hoisted into the postal van Ahmadinejad has taken to parking prominently when he barnstorms the provinces, in an audacious campaign to make every Iranian's wish come true."
If you want to read a book that presents one side and distorts facts to fit that explanation, or you have a neoconservative worldview and want to read a book that is consistent with your thinking, Barbara Slavin's book is a good choice. Otherwise, this is just another unfortunate relic of the Bush years, a book one should read with a high degree of discernment.
3 of 5 people found the following review helpful:
A good primer but..., 2008-06-24
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.
1 of 3 people found the following review helpful:
 Well Balanced and Informative, 2008-04-21
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.
4 of 12 people found the following review helpful:
Bitter Friends, Bosom Enemies, 2008-01-18
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.
Price is accurate as of the date/time indicated. Prices and product availability are subject to change. Any price displayed on the Amazon website at the time of purchase will govern the sale of this product.
|
Store Categories
|