King of Kings: The Iranian Revolution—A Story of Hubris, Delusion and Catastrophic Miscalculation

by Scott Anderson

From the author of the acclaimed New York Times bestseller Lawrence in Arabia, a stunningly revelatory narrative history of one of the most momentous events in modern times, the jaw-dropping stupidity of the American government, and the dawn of the age of religious nationalism.

On November 16th, 1977, at a state dinner in the White House, President Jimmy Carter toasted Shah Mohammad Reza Pahlavi, King of Kings, Light of the Aryans, Shadow of God on Earth, praising his "enlightened leadership" and extolling Iran as "a stabilizing influence in that part of the world." Iran had the world's fifth largest army and was awash in billions of dollars in oil revenues. Construction cranes dotted the skyline of its booming capital, Tehran. The regime's feared secret police force SAVAK had crushed communist opposition, and the Shah had bought off the conservative Muslim clergy inside the country. He seemed invulnerable, and invaluable to the United States as an ally in the Cold War. Fourteen months later the Shah fled Iran into exile, forced from the throne by a volcanic religious revolution led by a fiery cleric named Ayatollah Khomeini. How could the United States, which had one of the largest CIA stations in the world and thousands of military personnel in Iran, have been so blind?

The spellbinding story Scott Anderson weaves is one of a dictator oblivious to the disdain of his subjects and a superpower blundering into disaster. The Shah emerges as a fascinating, Shakespearean character - a wannabe Richard III unaware of the depth of dissent to his rule, indecisive like Hamlet when action was called for, and at the end Lear-like as he raged against his fate. The Americans made terrible decisions at almost every juncture, from a secret pact designed by Kissinger and Nixon, to dismissing reports from the one diplomat who saw how hated the Shah was by the Iranian people (unlike almost all his colleagues, he spoke Farsi), to Jimmy Carter allowing the Shah to come to America for medical treatment, which set off the hostage crisis which forever damaged American influence in the world.

Scott Anderson tells this astonishing tale with the narrative brio, mordant wit, and keen analysis that made his bestselling Lawrence in Arabia one of the key texts in understanding the modern Middle East. Based on voluminous research and dozens of interviews, King of Kings is driven by penetrating portraits of the people involved - the Iranian-American doctor who convinced American officials Khomeini was a moderate; the American teacher who learned of Khomeini's influence long before the cleric was even mentioned in official reports; the Shah's court minister who kept a detailed diary of all their interactions; the Shah's wife Farah who still mourns her lost kingdom; the hypocritical and misguided Jimmy Carter; and the implacable Khomeini who outmaneuvered his foes at every turn.

The Iranian Revolution, Anderson convincingly argues, was as world-shattering an event as the French and Russian revolutions. In the Middle East, in India, in Southeast Asia, in Europe, and now in the United States, the hatred of economically-marginalized, religiously-fervent masses for a wealthy secular elite has led to violence and upheaval - and Iran was the template. King of Kings is a bravura work of history, and a warning.

Genres: History, Nonfiction, Iran, Middle East, Politics, American History, World History

512 pages, Hardcover

First published August 5, 2025

About the author

Scott Anderson is a veteran war correspondent who has reported from Lebanon, Israel, Egypt, Northern Ireland, Chechnya, Sudan, Bosnia, El Salvador, and many other strife-torn countries. He is a contributing writer for The New York Times Magazine, and his work has also appeared in Vanity Fair, Esquire, Harper's and Outside.

Reviews

[Brendan (History Nerds United) · Rating 5 out of 5]

I was excited for King of Kings: The Iranian Revolution by Scott Anderson. Unfortunately, Iran became rather topical recently, but I was most enticed by the fact that I knew very little about the entire story.

Turns out, apparently the shah, his government, and the Carter administration had the same problem.

First things first, I have to praise Scott Anderson's work making this narrative understandable. The Iranian Revolution did not follow the same ramp up and culmination like many of the other revolutions of history. As an American, I have Lexington and Concord as the flashpoint where the shot heard round the world served as the final explosion of the tension which had built to a climax. Scholars may argue some of the finer points, but it started there.

Iran? It was more like a boiling pot of water. There were a few overflows here and there, but then a cooling period. Then a few more overflows. Then the whole thing overflowed while many government officials stood there and said, "I didn't realize the pot was boiling."

Anderson masterfully makes this all understandable. There are dozens of people vital to the story or sometimes only vital to one part of the story. The author finds a way to make each character stick in your head and present them as full individuals who often have tragic tunnel vision. Anderson has to play with the timelines a bit which is necessary but can feel almost overwhelming. Luckily, being overwhelmed helps you imagine what it was like to actually be there.

I also appreciate that Anderson is willing to call people out when necessary. He never paints any particular person as fully good or evil. These are people who are complex. However, when they make (or fail to make) a boneheaded decision, I like when the author confirms that what you just read is a head-scratcher. To put it another way, he's not interested in villainizing his characters, but a dumb move is a dumb move, and it needs to be acknowledged.

I highly recommend this one especially if you are unfamiliar with the subject.

(This book was provided as an advance reader copy by Doubleday Books.)

[Vanessa (semi-hiatus) · Rating 5 out of 5]

I was drawn to read Scott Anderson's King of Kings after reading Ben Macintyre's The Siege. The 444-day American hostage crisis in Tehran was mentioned in the book as the simultaneous hostage situation and rescue efforts at the Iranian embassy in London were described by Macintyre. What in the world is going in with Iran at this point of modern history? And for me, I wondered about Iran's overall history.

Anderson does a phenomenal job in taking all of the intricate details with the players, the politics, and the actions and shapes them into an understandable and linear timeline.

America aligned itself with Iran as the country was deemed the most stable in the Middle East at the time. America traded armaments for oil. Iran had a large established army, the fifth largest in the world. Within Iran, murmurings were coming to surface of a desire to overthrow the Shah and establish a government that would end up being theocratic in nature. The United States was so obsessed with preventing the spread of Communism that the Carter administration and other government agencies and higher-ups failed to see until it was too late the dangers of a takeover by Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini and the men he placed in charge after the Shahanshah and his family departed the country.

Anderson does extensive research and offers a deep-dive into how all of this happened. He was in Washington at the Ellipse reporting on the protests when Shah Pahlavi came to Washington, D.C. in November of 1977. He interviews those who are still with us, including the late Shah Pahlavi's wife, Farah.

[Alan Chrisman · Rating 4 out of 5]

Step by step analysis of how Iranian Revolution came to be: king who lost touch with his people. One bad U.S. policy after another; Nixon and Kissinger using Iran as Cold War pawn, helping it build 5th biggest army in world for its oil, Carter admin. continuing same mistakes and bungling hostage crises, led to Carter's election defeat, takeover by a fundamentalist cleric. The consequences of which we're still dealing with to this day.

[Mark · Rating 5 out of 5]

Once you accept that Scott Anderson has chosen to cast the Iranian revolution largely as a story of American foreign policy failure, his account is completely absorbing, even thrilling at times. What surprised just about everyone at the time (even the revolutionaries) was how quickly things fell apart in Iran once the first cracks started showing. Between the speed of the revolution, the slowness of the Shah’s decision-making and the stubbornness behind American denial (e.g., not listening to the Farsi speaking diplomats who sensed how bad things were), one leaves the book with a very clear picture of the Shah’s fall.

Despite my initial statement, Anderson does manage to cover the revolution from the perspective of the Americans, the palace (even managing to extensively interview the Shah’s widow), and the revolutionaries; it’s just that his priorities (and perhaps his access) are in that order. The detail is incredible until the Shah falls, but I wanted a bit more insight into how the hardcore Islamists managed to seize the revolution from the moderates.

Overall, this is an outstanding account that makes us feel as though we are there. Thanks to Doubleday and Netgalley for providing a pre-publication egalley in exchange for an honest review.

[Bahar Rahsepar · Rating 5 out of 5]

As an Iranian girl, I grew up hearing one account of life under the Shah’s regime at home, while being taught a completely different one in school. Between that and the endless conspiracy theories that circulated, I’ve always wondered how the truth of that era actually unfolded. King of the Kings is a tactful, balanced, and deeply engaging account of the events, the mistakes, and the key players that shaped the revolution and led to its ultimate outcome. It also examines its aftermath, the ignorance and miscalculations that plagued the U.S. government, and how those errors helped shape key international conflicts that still echo today. The writing is exquisite, well-researched, captivating, and masterfully told. I truly could not put it down. A must-read for anyone seeking to understand not only this pivotal chapter in Iran’s history, but its lasting impact on the world.

[Annie Morphew · Rating 4 out of 5]

Ultimately Scott Anderson argues a compelling thesis: the success of the Iranian Revolution of 1979 was aided and abetted, if not the direct result of, hubristic and surprisingly low-information administrative cultures in both the Shah’s government and the U.S. state department. Anderson‘s laser-focus on the staff of the U.S. embassy in Tehran in the 70s, members of the Carter administration, the Shah himself, and a handful of leading figures in the revolutionary vanguard (from moderates like Ebrahim Yazdi who wanted an Islamist democracy to inveterate theocrat Ruhollah Khomeini) results in a propulsive, often cringe inducing, history.

Anderson argues his particular thesis very convincingly. However, if you are looking for a comprehensive overview of the Iranian Revolution or if you’re particularly interested in how Iranian people experienced and drove these upheavals then you will have to read elsewhere. In my opinion, this definitely shouldn’t be the only book anyone reads about Iran or its Revolution.

With all that said, I do have one more critique that is simultaneously a bit pedantic and absolutely fundamental. When discussing the contemporary significance of this book, Anderson claims that the Iranian Revolution “poses a chief complicating factor in Western efforts… to temper Israel’s devastating military offensive in Gaza” (page xvii). The term you are looking for is GENOCIDE, Mr. Anderson. To be fair, I read an ARC of this text so I hold out hope that a correction was made before publication or will be in future editions.

[Shahin Keusch · Rating 5 out of 5]

good and informative but alwsys makes me sad what happened in Iran in 1979.

i

[Florence · Rating 5 out of 5]

Scott Anderson has taken a maelstrom of events and produced a coherent narrative of a dramatic period in history. I dimly remember the Iranian revolution. I absorbed superficial knowledge of the event itself from vague newspaper articles and television broadcasts. This book, rich with Iranian history, Shia culture, and growing discontent with the reign of a powerful monarch, brought the events of history into sharp focus.

The revolution ushered in a radical Shiite theocracy and toppled an important American ally. Beginning with the Nixon administration the United States had been supplying the Shah of Iran with armaments in exchange for a bountiful supply of oil. Iran was a stable ally in an unstable region of the world. It had the world's fifth largest military and an omnipresent secret police. As political violence began to take hold the administration of Jimmy Carter failed to identify a threat despite plenty of warning from its own insiders. The regime was in deep trouble for a long time. Washington naively believed that zealous Shiite mullahs would somehow evolve into moderates. Whether it was hubris, incompetence, or a myopic fear of Communism above all other threats, the United States failed to take reasonable action. As a result Iran today is a rogue state on the verge of obtaining nuclear weapons.

[Alex Miller · Rating 4 out of 5]

This book is essentially half narrative history of the Iranian Revolution and half a history of how the US was blindsided by this pivotal turning point in Middle Eastern history, with a key ally being replaced with a militantly anti-American theocracy that lasts to the present day. The US made a number of crucial mistakes: first not recognizing the massive discontent with the shah's regime among the Iranian people, then putting faith in the shah's ability to crush the uprising, then finally (and perhaps most crucially) misreading the intentions of the main opposition figure, Ayatollah Khomeini. I came away from this book with a grudging respect for Khomeini as a political tactician: he played his cards extremely well at all turns, knowing exactly what he wanted (Islamist theocracy) and getting it. He held firm on his main demand for the shah's abdication when others in the opposition were willing to cut a deal and preserve the monarchy, while also duping the Americans into believing an Islamist Iran would be better for US interests than a communist Iran (never a serious prospect, but Khomeini learned from Iranian American sources that a Soviet-aligned Iran was Washington's main concern). He even duped his moderate, Western-educated advisers into believing that he would be a spiritual mentor to the revolution and gently guide it to democracy from the outside. Of course, the quick march of events in 1979, culminating in the seizure of the US embassy in Tehran that November (swiftly endorsed by the ayatollah) and ratification of an Islamist constitution in December, confirmed what Khomeini really wanted.

Where was the US in all of this? Supporting the status quo (Iran was the single largest purchaser of American weapons in the final years of the shah's reign) and being blind to events in a country that was a key ally in the region (President Carter infamously toasted the Shah at a New Year Eve's dinner in 1977 that he was beloved by his people, in other words on the very eve of the revolution). Despite having a large embassy staffed with hundreds of employees and one of the largest CIA stations in the world, there was a massive amount of ignorance about Iran: few of the Americans stationed there travelled outside the capital, often living a bubble-like existence behind fortified compounds and shopping at specialty stores with American-stocked goods; even fewer spoke Farsi. Few probably understood the history of US-Iranian relations (particularly US support for the 1953 coup that overthrew Prime Minister Mohammed Mossadegh). The end result of this ignorance was President Carter making the fateful decision in October 1979 to admit the shah into the US for medical treatment, gravely underestimating the impact this would have on the Iranian population. Student militants just weeks later stormed the US embassy and took its personnel hostage, sparking a 444 day crisis that destroyed Carter's presidency and set the stage for the mutual antagonism that persists between these two nations. Hopefully a new chapter in US-Iranian relations can be written soon.

[E · Rating 5 out of 5]

The Iranian revolution of 1979 is perhaps the most consequential revolution in history since the October Revolution. The result haunts Americans and monarchist Iranians to this day. It inspires Shia Islamists and many lefty, anti-imperialists abroad. Without the Iranian Revolution of 1979 and the removal of the Shah, it is hard to imagine other circumstances that would’ve birthed such powerful Shiite terrorist organizations as Hezbollah or the Houthis in the Middle East. It’s also hard to fathom the occurrence of many acts of terrorism, including the 1983 Barracks Bombing or October 7th, 2023, without a change of power in Tehran in 1979. The consequences of 1979 can be felt most in Iran domestically. Without the 1979 Revolution, there would not be revolutionary courts that apply Sharia law as the law of the land. Using this strict interpretation of Sharia law, women in Iran are required to wear a veil and, as we have seen via CCTV recordings, are subject to horrific violence and arrest if they choose not to wear it. Since 1979, thousands of Iranians have been arbitrarily arrested and executed for protesting the current regime or holding different views. These results force many historians, analysts, and regular people to ponder and debate why the Iranian revolution happened and successfully removed the Shah.

Scott Anderson indicts the three most powerful figures who were most proximate to the revolution: the Shah, President Carter, and Ayatollah Khomeini. However, Anderson’s indictments extend to the various people serving these leaders, especially figures within the Carter administration. Although I believe Anderson overlooks some folks associated with Khomeini and other political groups in Iran, he uses incredibly valuable interviews and books by senior U.S. officials and intelligence officers to reveal how much the United States fumbled. Although the Shah and Khomeini undoubtedly played pivotal roles in 1979, these interviews completely implicate American leaders in the Shah’s demise. Sparing the juicy details and findings, American hubris (in several instances) has contributed to the current Middle East and the various wars and extremist ideologies that plague it.

[Silvio111 · Rating 5 out of 5]

This is a thoroughly researched account of the Shah's reign starting in the 1950's when he succeeded his father. The author spoke to many, many primary sources from the State Dept, CIA, NSA, the White House staff, and members of the Shah's administration, as well as opposition figures. Pretty much the only person he was unable to speak to was the late Ayatollah Khomeini himself!

It was eye-opening that the Shah (the self-proclaimed king of kings, or "shahanshah") reigned as a dictator for decades, yet because he surrounded himself with sycophants -- yes men-- he was completely out of touch with his people and also was indecisive and disinclined to take responsibility for decisions, foisting them upon others.

The refusal, or disinclination, of the State Dept, the CIA, and the NSA to credit any intel that predicted his fall stemmed from their dependence upon Iran as an arms sales customer and as a supplier of oil.
Their myopic obsession with the Communist threat from Russia prevented them from giving a realistic weight to the dangers posed by the militant and extremely conservative mullahs-- i.e. Khomeini-- and when it was imminent they were unprepared.

All in all, this book is another page turner by the excellent historian, Scott Anderson.

[Nicola Waters · Rating 5 out of 5]

Can’t recommend this enough- I was riveted. Not a weak chapter.
I knew the basic facts but I had no idea about some of the detail here- the unbelievable incompetence of the US government (not just the politicians - incompetence at the State dept and CIA is almost unbelievable) , the myriad of people who deluded themselves Khomeini was a moderate, the reluctance on the part of the Shah to take decisive action that might have saved him.

[Mal Warwick · Rating 5 out of 5]

How Iran became America's bitterest enemy

When future historians tally the most consequential revolutionary movements of the modern era, the choices will be obvious. The Russian Revolution re-set the balance of power almost throughout the 20th century. In China, the Communists set the world’s most populous nation on a dramatic new course, leaving it poised to dominate the 21st century. And the Iranian Revolution unleashed a global wave of radical religious movements that have bedeviled the world ever since 1979.

That epic event also installed a regime that ever since has been America’s bitterest enemy. The stories of those transformations in Russia and China are well known. But the Iranian picture is far less clear to Americans. In King of Kings, veteran journalist Scott Anderson offers a remedy in his dazzling account of Iran’s trajectory from the American-led coup in 1953 to the cataclysmic events of 1979.

The Iranian Revolution did not have to happen

It’s difficult not to conclude after reading King of Kings that the Iranian Revolution wasn’t inevitable—at least in its now-familiar theocratic form. Even given the 1953 coup that ousted Iran’s elected government and restored Mohammad Reza Pahlavi (1919-80) as Shah, or King, that course might have been averted. And, as Anderson makes clear, the fault mostly lies in the US government. He charges our country’s decision-makers in the 1960s and 70s with “hubris, delusion and catastrophic miscalculation.”

The Shah himself shared those faults. But the United States wielded so much power that we could have ensured the pliable monarch took a more measured course. Had he done so, the Ayatollah Ruholla Khomeini (1900-89), the unhinged fanatic who spearheaded the Revolution, might have been sidelined with ease.

The book’s key sources were close to the action

Scott Anderson is an accomplished investigative journalist. He does his homework. And in writing King of Kings he delved deeply into the available record, often newly opened, and interviewed several of the key figures in his story, including the Shah’s third and last wife, Empress Farah Pahlavi. The result is a story that comes to life with immediacy, revealing the passions, fears, and miscalculations that triggered the Iranian Revolution.

Much of Anderson’s story rests on the testimony or written records of four key individuals:

A former Peace Corps Volunteer
Foreign Service Political Officer Michael Metrinko (1946-) was U.S. Consul-General in Tabriz, where some of the signature events of the Revolution transpired. Metrinko was a former Peace Corps Volunteer who had served both in Iran and in Turkey and spoke both Farsi and Turkish. In this he was nearly unique among State Department officials. Metrinko was serving in Tehran and became a hostage when Iranian students overran the US Embassy. He resisted his captors so persistently that he spent much of the time in solitary confinement.

The Iran desk officer
Henry Precht (1931-2022), who was the State Department’s Iran Desk Officer from 1978 to 1981. Anderson paints him as one of the earliest and most assertive skeptics of the Shah’s ability to stay in power. However, he was unable to persuade many of his colleagues despite the fact that he was the department’s principal Iran expert.

The President’s designated Iran specialist
Gary Sick (1935-) was the National Security Council (NSC) officer handling Iran affairs in 1978 during the Carter administration. Like his counterpart at the State Department, Henry Precht, he appreciated far earlier than others the weakness of the Iranian regime. However, his boss, the National Security Advisor, was an aggressive advocate for the Shah until the very end.

The empress
Farah Pahlavi (1938-), empress of Iran (Shahbanou), the shah’s third and last wife, struggled to moderate her husband’s impulsive and highly questionable decisions over the years. (They were married from 1959 to 1980.) He almost always disregarded her—and just about everybody else, for that matter.

Anderson’s account also rests on extensive records of several men who served the shah as prime minister or in other key positions. Their unfamiliar names blend into the woodwork. In addition, he gained access to several US and Iranian military officers who played significant roles in the final, tumultuous days of the regime.

The US officials who bear the greatest responsibility for the debacle

Anderson paints a sad picture of high-level American decision-making during the critical years of 1978 and 1979. The story he tells lays much of the blame at the feet of three men:

President Jimmy Carter
Jimmy Carter (1924-2024) was President during the Iranian Revolution. He bears ultimate responsibility for the catastrophic failure of the US relationship with imperial Iran. Long after there was abundant evidence that the shah’s regime was on its last legs, Carter continued to praise and support the man. And his decision to admit the shah to the United States for medical treatment in 1979 enraged Iranian opinion and led to the hostage crisis.

National Security Advisor Zbigniew Brzesinski
Carter’s powerful National Security Advisor from 1977 to 1981, Zbigniew Brzezinski (1928-2017) suppressed every attempt from his subordinates or from the State Department to question the wisdom of US policy toward Iran. Like most American officials, he believed that Iran, with its massive oil revenues and military power—the fifth largest army in the world—was invincible. None of them understood the appeal or the power of the ayatollahs’s message.

Ambassador Willian Sullivan
Veteran State Department diplomat William Sullivan (1922-2013) served as US Ambassador to Iran from 1977 to 1979. Like Brzezinski, he was an outspoken advocate of the shah and remained close to him throughout his posting in the country. However, unlike the National Security Advisor, he came to realize that the regime’s days were numbered and toward the end he attempted for months, in vain, to persuade the shah to leave Iran. His doing so might have opened an opportunity for moderate forces among those pressing for change to gain the upper hand. Delaying as long as he did instead ensured the ascendancy of Ayatollah Khomeini.

Richard Nixon and Henry Kissinger
Although they were not involved in the events of 1978 and 1979, President Richard Nixon and Secretary of State Henry Kissinger bear some measure of responsibility for the debacle, too. Early in the decade they forged an agreement with the shah to permit him to buy any and all arms from the United States with no questions asked. This agreement tied the hands of officials who later sought to raise concerns about the wastefulness of the purchases or the questionable ways that US armaments were used in suppressing resistance among the Iranian people.

About the author

Scott Anderson, formerly a war correspondent for the Associated Press, the New York Times, and Harper’s Magazine, is the author of eight notable works of nonfiction as well as two novels. He was born in California in 1959 but grew up in East Asia where his father was a US government agricultural advisor. He holds an MFA in Creative Writing from the University of Iowa Writer’s Workshop. His brother Jon Lee Anderson is also an accomplished writer. The two co-authored two nonfiction books. Anderson currently lives in Brooklyn, New York, with his wife and daughter.

[Writemoves · Rating 5 out of 5]

After reading this book, it’s easy to understand why U.S. relations with Iran remain so strained and why so much hostility exists toward America. For nearly a century, presidential administrations have made diplomatic blunders, compounded by intelligence failures that shaped disastrous outcomes.

I recently finished Tim Weiner’s The Mission: The CIA in the 21st Century, which documented the CIA’s missteps in Vietnam, Afghanistan, Iran, Iraq, and elsewhere. Anderson’s account shows the same pattern: Did we get anything right?

The intelligence failures in Iran were staggering. Agencies recorded Ayatollah Khomeini’s speeches but never bothered to translate them—missing clear warnings about his intentions. Meanwhile, the U.S. continued to prop up Shah Mohammad Reza Pahlavi, a weak and indecisive ruler despised by his own people. Ironically, his wife, Farah Pahlavi, displayed far more backbone and foresight. Yet to Washington, Iran’s real value was simply the oil beneath its soil.

Equally unconscionable was the way U.S. embassy staff in Tehran were treated as expendable pawns. The Carter administration fully understood the risks—especially after allowing the Shah into the United States—yet left personnel exposed to the fury of revolutionary crowds.

The lack of coordination between diplomatic and intelligence communities in the 1970s was nothing short of criminal. Mixed signals to the Shah, who desperately needed guidance and resolve, only deepened the chaos. Even today, the lingering question remains: Did Ronald Reagan deliberately delay the hostages’ release until after his inauguration?

Anderson does an excellent job highlighting both the heroes and villains of this tragic story. One memorable account involves teacher Michael Metrinko, who earned the respect of his Iranian students by deliberately standing up to—and physically subduing—the toughest among them.

By weaving personal tales with geopolitical history, Anderson makes the Iranian Revolution come alive in all its complexity. The result is a powerful and unsettling reminder of how deeply poor leadership and intelligence failures can alter history.

[Kathleen]

Placed a hold on this ebook (ebccls), 2 copies, 8 people waiting. I own two of the author's books, Lawrence of Arabia: War Deceit, Imperial Folly and the Making of the Middle East (a timely book to read) and The Quiet Americans: Four CIA Spies of the Dawn of the Cold War.

(SEE ALSO: https://www.nytimes.com/2025/08/02/bo... "Two War Reporter Brothers, 60 Countries and Now a Pair of New Books" -Jon Lee and Scott Anderson avoid being in the same conflict zone. But with new books publishing this month, they made a rare joint appearance in New Jersey.)

Read The New Yorker, August 8, 2025, "Death to the Shah: Nobody expected the Iranian Revolution. Not even the revolutionaies" by Daniel Immerwahr.
https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/20.... The last two paragraphs:
There was talk that the recent attacks by Israel and the United States might end Khamenei’s thirty-six-year reign. “All it takes now is a nationwide uprising to put an end to this nightmare,” the Shah’s son, Crown Prince Reza Pahlavi, thirstily suggested. He should know. But Tehran has faced war before without toppling. An eight-year conflict with Iraq in the eighties killed hundreds of thousands yet only strengthened Khomeini’s position. As Israel has seen in Gaza, it’s hard to persuade people to change their government by bombing them.

The larger instability today seems to be in the United States, not Iran. Norms here are shifting wildly, with the chaos centering on a single figure, our Napoleon on a golf cart. The usual questions arise: Is Donald Trump an accident or an inevitability? An erratic blunderer or the spray-tanned spirit of history? It may not ultimately matter. As Anderson’s book suggests, an event that is improbable can still be irreversible. A switch is thrown, the train hurtles down an alternate track, and it goes that way for a very long time.

[Dominic · Rating 5 out of 5]

A fascinating tale, and a very sad one.

Iran was poor, a dictatorship and a constant plaything and victim of great powers, due to its location and later on due to its oil.

Then came oil-riches and corruption and a lot of unhappiness within the populace. The US were keen to sell Iran weapons, seeing it as a bulwark against communism and a welcome customer for its arms industry, niceties like democracy and free speech be damned. US weapons were swapped for Iranian oil, the American economy benefited, while Iran drowned in weapons and corruption - well-connected segments of Iranian society profited, but the spoils were divided unevenly, and inflation became a scourge.

For a short time, everything seemed possible: A new shah, the more liberal scion of a harsher ruler, started a course towards a more enlightened system. At the same time, opposition to the dictatorship grew stronger (one of the reasons for the more liberal course - to appease the populace), and a revolution to overthrow the monarchy became a realistic possibility (but also the spectre of the very powerful army taking over in a military coup).

In the end, the revolution happened, but instead of democracy or military dictatorship, the result was a fanatical, archconservative theocracy, much worse than the monarchy it replaced and a harbinger for similar organizations in the future as well as a source of conflict for generations to come.

Anderson does a great job telling this story. It's an easy and immensely informative read, suspenseful as a thriller. He masterfully describes how the Iranian revolution wasn't an inevitability but an accident. The whole catastrophy costing many thousands of lives and adversely impacting millions was almost purely the result of stupidity, indecision, hubris and lack of interest of various decisionmakers within Iran and also the US, which wielded huge influence over the shah and completely dropped the ball when it counted.

[Randall Russell · Rating 4 out of 5]

Having lived through the Carter presidency and the Iranian Revolution and the resulting "Hostage Crisis," I was surprised by all the things in this book that either weren't known at the time or I didn't remember. I think the author offers a number of very interesting and astute insights into the causes of the revolution, one of the primary ones being the dithering of the Shah himself. This book also brought back to me how consequential the Iranian revolution was, and how much of what we're still dealing with in the world today can be traced back to that seminal event. I also was amazed that even after the US's terrible misadventure in Vietnam, Iran was another case where we weren't paying attention, lost contact with what was really going on, backed a ruler who was borderline incompetent and corrupt, or actually all of the above! Talk about not learning the lessons of history. Oh, well! The one bone I have to pick with the book is that almost at the end of the book the author devotes all of one page to whether the Reagan campaign sabotaged the hostage negotiations (which would be treason) in order to win the 1980 election or not. Given the implications of that, I thought that issue was worthy of a lot more attention than it received here. Other than that, I would recommend this book as an excellent overview of what has become (not sure why) a rather overlooked episode of American history.

[Bahramo · Rating 5 out of 5]

King of Kings is everything I want in a nonfiction book. It reads like a fast-paced political thriller but it’s all true, and it makes the chaos of the Iranian Revolution feel personal, real, and impossible to look away from.

Scott Anderson doesn’t just retell the story of 1979. He zooms in on the people who made the decisions that shaped history. The Shah comes across as both tragic and frustrating, a man who never fully understood his country or the moment he was living in. On the other side, American officials are often clueless or overconfident, convinced they can control the future with the right mix of money, weapons, and diplomacy. Spoiler: they can’t.

What sets this book apart is the detail. Anderson interviewed dozens of insiders, dug into documents, and found voices we don’t usually hear from. The writing is sharp, the storytelling is clean, and there’s a constant sense of tension. Even if you already know how it ends, it still feels suspenseful.

It’s a long read and not light. And if you’re looking for a balanced take on US foreign policy, be prepared... Anderson doesn’t pull punches. But that’s what makes it so compelling. It doesn’t feel like a dry history lesson. It feels like watching a slow motion disaster with the benefit of hindsight.

If you liked books like Ghost Wars or The Looming Tower, or just want to understand how a modern revolution can spiral out of control, this is worth your time.

[Pedram Lajevardi · Rating 5 out of 5]

This is a compelling and illuminating book about the Iranian Revolution of 1979. It provides a rare and nuanced look into the mindset and motivations of three central figures—Ayatollah Khomeini, Mohammad Reza Shah, and Jimmy Carter—along with many of the people who surrounded and influenced them during this historic period.

What I found particularly striking were the character portrayals of these three key leaders:

Khomeini: Those around him had deep faith in his leadership and were instrumental in helping him rise to power. Tragically, almost all of his early supporters—such as Ghotbzadeh, Bazargan, Yazdi, and Banisadr—parted ways with him shortly after the revolution.

Mohammad Reza Shah: He is depicted as deeply insecure, which led to a pervasive lack of trust in those around him. Also, his inability to delegate or take decisive action in times of crisis proved to be a significant weakness. Early in his reign, his passivity made him appear controllable to American officials. Over the years, he worked to build an image of himself as a powerful and visionary monarch—but toward the end, it seems he was ultimately deceived by that very image.

Jimmy Carter: I got the impression that Carter struggled to manage multiple international crises simultaneously. This was compounded by ineffective—or at times nonexistent—communication within his administration. As a result, the U.S. response to the uprising in Iran was slow and inadequate.

[Susan Scribner · Rating 3 out of 5]

Deep dive into the numerous factors that led up to the 1979 Iranian revolution and the 444 day hostage crisis, with an emphasis on a great deal of idiotic behavior by the American government. Just a few examples: the different Federal entities with stakes in Iran didn't play well with each other (or at all). Only one embassy employee spoke Farsi and could communicate with Iranians outside the compound; the rest accepted the version of reality set forth by the Shah and his lackeys. When the Ayatollah Khomeini started fomenting revolt, American staff believed his spokespersons who promised a secular, democratic government. And even a theocracy was considered to be preferable to letting the Soviet Union claim another red domino.

If I had realized that the takeover of the U.S. Embassy didn't happen until the last 25 pages of the book I might not have requested it. It is a bit of a slog to get through, but Anderson is so meticulous in his layering of blunder upon screwup upon error that the first 400 pages actually go down fairly easily. I hope we're all still here in 40 years so someone can look back and sagely write about the foreign policy disasters we're currently living through.

[Julio Pino · Rating 4 out of 5]

It might be possible to find a more stupid and bungled U.S. foreign policy snafu than its alliance with the Shah of Iran, from the CIA coup that restored him to power in 1953 by ousting a civilian democratic government to Nixon and Kissinger financing Iran's bid to become the world's fifth largest military power in the Seventies, passing to Jimmy Carter's embrace and sudden drop-kick of the Shah-in-Shah (Emperor of Emperors) from 1978-1979 while completely underestimating the Ayatollah Khomeini, but it's highly doubtful. Iran was a nightmare and disaster to rival Vietnam, with even graver long-term consequences for all the players. Scott Anderson is not unsympathetic towards the Shah, in fact many of his political decisions Scott reconstructs through interviews with his Empress, but Washington comes in for a greater share of the blame. whether by decision or, in the case of Carter, indecision.

[Corri Van de Stege · Rating 5 out of 5]

A brilliant read about how the revolution in Iran came about. I lived there at the time and I’m fascinated by the account of what was going on in the background. It’s very American focused but then one of the main players in all of what happened was of course America and the Shah’s relationship with American presidents and military. So much hubris. In addition the timeline is the same as that of my own account of living in Isfahan before, during and after the revolution, Half the World (available on Amazon). The names and characters are all familiar and I imagine I’ll dip back into the book every so often. It’s an extremely well written and deeply researched account of what actually happened and how we have now ended up with an Islamic government that is as treacherous as the shah ever was.

[Yashar · Rating 2 out of 5]

I recently read a new book on the 1979 Iranian revolution that struck me as methodologically flawed. The historiography of the Pahlavi era typically relies on just a few interviews to construct entire narratives. Anderson's book follows this pattern, interviewing Farah Pahlavi and Nourbakhsh (Yazdi's son-in-law), which noticeably shapes his perspective.

While the sections on Iran and the Pahlavi court offer nothing novel, the accounts of White House and American embassy activities are compelling. The text builds its narrative from conversations with select individuals rather than direct interviews.

The book reveals remarkable chaos in American foreign policy: the Pentagon, State Department, and National Security Advisor operated independently, often withholding information from each other. Ambassador Sullivan, despite his previous competence, performed poorly during this crisis.

Two key takeaways: the problematic reliance of Iranian revolution historiography on limited interviews, and the surprising disarray within American diplomatic operations despite the country's global stature.

[MH · Rating 5 out of 5]

An impressively-researched deep dive into the causes of the Iranian revolution and the many, many moments where it might have been averted. The subtitle says it all, as the people working for the Shah and the people working for the States - two massive ensembles that Anderson does an excellent job keeping clear for the reader - ignore the increasingly obvious signs of revolution out of careerism, incompetence, and willful ignorance, only bringing their superiors the good news they want to hear. It's illuminating and stomach-turning, and Anderson tells the awful story really well and makes a fine case for the world-changing importance of this historical moment.

I was lucky enough to win a copy in a Goodreads giveaway.

[William Nelson · Rating 4 out of 5]

Anyone interested in the background to the Iranian revolution certainly will want to read this book, and anyone else may well find that they become interested. It is a fascinating story and well told by Anderson (outside of some puzzling grammatical novelties). The book picks up after the Shah's return, so don't expect an expose of the CIA role in that. The general tenor of the book is that the US could and should have prevented the establishment of the Islamic Republic had they not basically taken the Shah for granted. Regardless how you end up feeling about this contention, it is definitely a worthwhile account.

[Bryan Fichter · Rating 5 out of 5]

A masterful retelling of the fall of the shah; unlike Gary Sick's All Fall Down, this author was able to speak to a lot of the Iranian participants in what was an actual world-historical event. The hubris of both the shah and successive U.S. administrations is jaw-dropping. I couldn't help but compare our ignorance about actual conditions on the ground in Iran to our similar ignorance of the landscape when we invaded Iraq in 2003.

[Rachel Reid · Rating 5 out of 5]

SUCH a good and comprehensive, detailed account of the years leading up to the taking of American hostages in Iran and the problems in the Shah's regime that led to the revolution that still impacts our foreign policy landscape. I knew quite a bit about the hostage crisis (thanks Mark Bowden "Guests of the Ayatollah"), but I knew virtually NOTHING about the Shah other than he led with lots of fear/secret police. I didn't know much about American involvement with the Shah which this book addresses in great detail. I also thought there was greater food for thought in some of the observations made about the things the Shah did that were not dictatorial at all but flaws in leadership style that caused big time problems--these observations could easily be taken as warnings for leaders in both parties in our own country.

[Jay Louttit · Rating 4 out of 5]

I've been looking to learn a little more about Iran and found this to be a fascinating book. It is quite interesting to read about a flawed, corrupt, authoritarian regime that somehow offered more promise than many similar governments. Very instructive for better understanding the complex relationship between the US and Iran and left this reader asking many questions about what if things had developed only slightly differently at pivotal moments between the two countries. Highly recommend.

[Masood · Rating 1 out of 5]

I don’t think the author has a solid understanding of the Iranian people. He sees and writes about what is on the surface and promoted by the Islamic regime. Obviously the author had a limited exposure to the average people or did not have the trust of them to express their real thoughts and feelings about the Islam and Islamic regime in Iran.

[Anthony Millspaugh · Rating 5 out of 5]

I learned so much about Iranian history and especially how the Iranian Revolution has been the precursor to several of the religious extremism of that event has had impact on all religious based conflicts by all three Abrahamic religions. I have a new hero—Michael Metrinko. What a colorful character.