Suchergebnisse

"Using both English and Persian-language sources, Firoozeh Kashani-Sabet outlines the evolving relationship between the U.S. and Iran from 1800 until 1988. Highlighting the oft-neglected impact of social and cultural changes on diplomatic developments, she offers a holistic history of two powerful countries' dynamic relationship"--

Using both English and Persian-language sources, Firoozeh Kashani-Sabet outlines the evolving relationship between the U.S. and Iran from 1800 until 1988. Highlighting the oft-neglected impact of social and cultural changes on diplomatic developments, she offers a holistic history of two powerful countries' dynamic relationship.

Iran handed the world a surprise in 1951. That spring, its parliament voted to nationalize the country's lucrative petroleum industry. Euphoria spread as young Iranians tore down Anglo-Iranian Oil Company (AIOC) signs and watched mighty Britain cower (temporarily) before the hero of Iran's oil nationalization, Mohammad Mosaddeq. Stunned by this brazenness, an American summary posed the question on the minds of many diplomats: "How did nine Persian politicians win sufficient power to destroy the concession of the Anglo-Iranian Oil Company?" For the next two years the West tried to figure out how to confine this enormous shock to the petroleum market by focusing on the man it held responsible for the crisis. An aristocrat and seasoned politician, Mohammad Mosaddeq garnered the support he needed to break through the monopoly of the AIOC. With the world's attention on Mosaddeq and oil at the time, it was unclear to many (although not to Mosaddeq himself) that another monumental battle for the future of Iran was taking shape: the fight for women's suffrage.

In 1946, the entertainer and activist Paul Robeson pondered America's intentions in Iran. In what was to become one of the first major crises of the Cold War, Iran was fighting a Soviet aggressor that did not want to leave. Robeson posed the question, "Is our State Department concerned with protecting the rights of Iran and the welfare of the Iranian people, or is it concerned with protecting Anglo-American oil in that country and the Middle East in general?" This was a loaded question. The US was pressuring the Soviet Union to withdraw its troops after its occupation of the country during World War II. Robeson wondered why America cared so much about Soviet forces in Iranian territory, when it made no mention of Anglo-American troops "in countries far removed from the United States or Great Britain." An editorial writer for a Black journal in St. Louis posed a different variant of the question: Why did the American secretary of state, James F. Byrnes, concern himself with elections in Iran, Arabia or Azerbaijan and yet not "interfere in his home state, South Carolina, which has not had a free election since Reconstruction?"

Early America engaged with Islam through multiple channels. As American missionaries traveled abroad in search of converts, and lived among Muslims, they often viewed the religion and its adherents through the lens of Christianity. For some, Islam's prophet was a false hero, "an impostor," and the message of the religion was an unfortunate pastiche of the Judeo-Christian tradition. Simultaneously, American scholars of religion and the ancient Near East in the nineteenth century approached the Islamic world out of an academic desire to understand Middle Eastern antiquity. Through this process of intellectual inquiry, the American academy eventually developed an interest in the study of Islam itself. Thus, two dominant strands of thought emerged that led to divergent discourses about Islam in the United States. These two discourses—an academic one versus a popular one rooted in missionary experiences—have endured and shaped the contemporary understanding of Islam in America.