Comparing Alvandi's Nixon, Kissinger, And The Shah

744 Words2 Pages

In his work "Nixon, Kissinger, and the Shah," Roham Alvandi illustrates a much more complicated and personal understanding of the U.S./ Iranian relations that developed during the Cold War Nixon Administration. Alvandi contends that the public consensus position that the Iranian Shah, Mohammad Reza Pahlavi, was an “American Proxy” is too incorrect and overly simplistic. He does this by shedding light on Pahlavi’s relationship with Nixon and Kissinger, which portrays him as a politically savvy leader attempting to lead his country into a more Western-leaning, post-World War II global climate. The first hint we get at Alvandi’s position is in the introduction to the book, where he directly states that this is the intention of his book. “This …show more content…

Alvandi also points us to his thesis by assessing the Shah’s independent and defiant character. He avoids painting the Shah as disdainful towards U.S. interests, but rather, he is shown as a considerate and attentive leader, paying heed to Iran's political and economic needs. Hart 2 His position successfully demonstrates Pahlavi's independence and serves as a political lesson for future government actors: that governmental leaders will and should use their political influence to benefit their own countries' interests. Another hint in the direction of Alvandi’s thesis is found in his conclusion; he states, “... the borders between alignment and non-alignment were more fluid and dynamic than previously thought” (179). While he is specifically addressing the definition of “third world,” I believe the undertone of this statement is his conclusion on the character of Shah …show more content…

His assessment of Pahlavi leads him to conclude that the world was not so black and white as Axis, Allies, and Third World considerations. Finally, in his assessment and hope for the future of American/Iranian relations, Alvandi states, “Iranian and American leaders must share a common set of ideas about the nature of the global order, as Nixon, Kissinger, and the Shah did some 40 years ago” (180). This statement certainly leads the reader to believe that Alvandi holds the Cold War-era U.S./Iran relationship in high regard. It is evident to the reader that Alvandi, as an Iranian, admires Shah Pahlavi as an intelligent and patriotic leader, a man who wanted something better for his people. Though I believe that Alvandi did a good job illustrating his thesis, I found the book to be unengaging. It could certainly be my lack of interest in the era, but I found the details monotonous, and reading the book was difficult for me. It was very concise as a historical account, and Alvandi did a good job fitting copious amounts of data into a relatively short

Open Document