Iran: A Modern History

This is a huge book, but it covers a massive topic. I has a conversational tone instead of a narrative, so individual chapters have a general topic but a meandering story. There are many controversial statements presented as fact here which could be argued, but the author only mentions them in passing so you must ask yourself why it was included in the first place. The author is constantly comparing what went on in Iran to contemporary events in Europe. This becomes impossible because each individually is a non-specific issue that covers a broad policies in Iran without detail. Also, the author stereotypes all \”Europe\” to include everything from the ancient Greeks to Revolutionary France. For instance, he brings up the preception of Persia (Iran) from the Bible. That opens up a can of worms, but the author could have started with \”it is beyond the scope of this book to assess the accuracy of any sacred text.\” But instead, the book presents what is said in the Bible as fact with two end notes that say \”although it was really a composite work written centuries later.\” This combined with the fact in one passage he says that ancient Iranian alphabet was dropped for the \”more accurate\” Arabian one, but later he states flatly that the transition was a product of the Islamic invasion. He also avoids saying how Islam came by mass conversion at sword point, only saying that the older Zoroastrianism was replaced \”very quickly.\” The author thinks the Latin \”Rex\” means theocrat. He is WRONG, Rex means king or dictator which is solely secular authority. Author admits that slavery in Iran was open to many abuses including sexual slavery, but insists that it was not as bad as what happened in Europe. The unfair comparison is unfair, especially since Europe had a whole rainbow of policies and practices over the centuries. Also, the author says that inter-racial marriages were not uncommon, but he ignores it was also forbidden and subject to all sorts of mandatory discrimination. In fact, most of the biracial children were the product of sexual slavery. But since the author does not detail how social and legal justice was dealt out, he allows the impression that slavery was unimportant. You can obviously see where the author is coming from. But there is a lot of good information in this book, but inexperienced ears should be cautious of the lack of an overall argument or narrative and occasional factual inaccuracies.