Iran Empire Of The Mind Summary

As we are introduced to the Great Persian Empire, we find that Amy Chua’s thesis talks about how tolerance was critical in allowing the Persians to not only establish and prosper their world dominant empire, but to maintain it for over two centuries. The thesis of the book, Day of Empire by Amy Chua, is about the “study of colossal power and the conditions needed to maintain it”. Not only this, but it discusses “the contest between ethnic “purity” and ethnic pluralism”. Amy Chua argues that The Achaemenid Persian Empire was “one of the first hyper powers in world history, governing a territory larger than all the ancient empires, including even Rome’s.” (Day of Empire pg. 4) Along with this, she argues that the Persian Empire was “one of the most culturally diverse and religiously open empires in history.” (Day of Empire pg. 4) Therefore, the author argues that The Persian Empire is relevant when discussing large powerful world authorities with a large size, long period of ruling, and ethnic tolerance it

Various factors influenced the 1979 Iranian revolution, but at the core of this significant event was Islamic fundamentalism. The Iranian religious leader, Ayatollah Khomeini, led this movement to end the thirty-seven-year reign of Mohammad Reza Shah Pahlavi, also known as the Shah of Iran (Diller 1991, p.152). The revolution was a combination of mounting social, economic, political and religious strains. The nation of Iran was never colonized, unlike some of its bordering countries, making its people intolerant of external influences. The Shah had gradually westernized and secularized his country, creating a strong American presence that was being felt

Iran was now unprotected, and a new power came into being. The Arabs invaded and the quality of life changed. “People fell into poverty as the greedy court imposed ever-increasing taxes. Tyranny tore apart the social contract between ruler and ruled that Zoroastrian doctrine holds to be the basis of organized life” (21). The Iranian people couldn’t survive with a ruler who had no sympathy or respect for them. Their life was being over run by foreigners.

The complexity of America’s relationship with Iran increased steadily beginning in 1908, when Iran struck oil. The Shah, the king or emperor of Iran, after taking the place of his young predecessor Reza Shah Pahlavi with the help of the CIA, led Iran into a period of extreme wealth and prosperity, the likes of which the Iranian people had never experienced. However, with the growth of wealth in Iran came the growth of Iranian resentment towards the West, specifically the United States. The Iranian’s resented the uneven distribution of wealth that they felt existed and the United State’s influence in “westernizing” their society. In 1963, this growing hatred led to a conflict with the Islamic clergy. The conflict was quickly settled by the Shah, but he was unaware that this dispute was the beginning

Thesis: Iran, because of these events, is in worse condition because of the cultural revolution, poisoned from within, and is the victim of the actions of the western powers.

King Cyrus began the Persian Empire. He began as a tribal leader and proceeded to overthrow the overlord who ruled the area. He is the leader who conquered the most of the Persian empire's land. His empire extended from Anatolia to the Indus River. Cyrus is known as a great conqueror. Cyrus was the leader of one of several powers in the middle east rapidly absorbing the pieces of the recently collapsed Assyrian Empire. After declaring independence and then quickly absorbing the Medes, Cyrus went on to conquer Asia Minor (Turkey) including the conquest of the Asiatic Greeks on the western coast of Turkey. Cyrus then turned back towards the middle east and conquered Babylon. He was killed in battle fighting against

President George W. Bush’s “axis of evil” speech undermined support of Iranians who argued for better relations with the United States. When Bush made that speech in 2002, Mohammad Khatami, a reformer, was the president of Iran (Freedman 473). The United States sanctions against Iran have helped to further the Abadgaran regime’s agenda by giving justification to a group that is desperate for it; the sanctions have allowed them to consolidate their power and further oppress Iranians who go against the government’s policies. Iran’s current state is best described in Lawrence Freeman’s A Choice of Enemies:

The Iranian Revolution, also known as the Islamic Revolution of 1979 took place in Iran. It is when Mohammad Reza Shah Pahlavi the emperor of Iran during that time, was overthrown by the revolutionary forces led by Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini and thereafter established the Islamic National Republic of Iran. The Iranian Revolution brought a big change into the international community and how it viewed revolutions. As Iran’s revolution lacked many of the fundamental causes that were though to give rise to revolutions. It was unusual in the sense that it had no ‘agrarian’ pattern. As the traditional social structure was maintained after the revolution and it reinstated old structure as the Muslim clergy came into power. To understand what led to the Iranian Revolution of 1979, we need to look back into the Iranian history and the timeline leading up to the revolution. In doing so, we can use the psychological theories of revolution and structural- functionalist theories of revolution in order to analyses and explain the cause of the Iranian Revolution.

All The Shah’s Men is a historical account written by Stephen Kizner that reconstructs the American backed Iranian coup of 1953. I chose to read this book because I am interested in America’s role in Middle Eastern history and current affairs. One of the many reasons to place this book on a high-school American history-reading list is that it provides key insight into a quintessential example of US involvement in the politics of other independent countries. This book is important to American history because it narrates a turning point in US foreign policy and the Middle East. Unfortunately, the compelling description of the events in Iran are used to draw tenuous conclusions about the root cause acts of Jihadist violence directed against

Long before the great king, Cyrus’ death the Persian Empire had reached the milestone that allowed it to be the first empire that was so large. Cyrus had a son, who took over the throne in 530 B.C.E., named Cambyses II. Cambyses would show the same ambition we saw in his father. In 525 B.C.E he added Egypt to the Persian Empire. His victory was not to be enjoyed for long. He died in 522 B.C.E. and it is assumed that he may have died from a sword wound. This wound is believed to be accidental. Although, his death was not mourned for like that of his father. This may have been due to his

Throughout the 19th and 20th century Iran saw not only the changing of three regimes, but also the coming, and going of classical imperialists in Britain and Russia, but also late comers to the game in the United States. In each instance however, Iran was on a road to appeasement. In some instances such as with the Qajar’s, Iran’s Imperial family was trying to get more money for the betterment of itself. In the event of the Pahlavi’s, Iran was trying to modernize based off of a western model of success. In both instances the carving out of resources was involved in which Iran stood to lose the most by giving up very lucrative state industries to

When Cyrus ascended the throne in 559 BCE in the Median vassal state Anshan, he was very much subject to the Mede king Astyages; but seven years later he revolted, overthrew the Medes and thus inherited Media and Assyria, forming the foundation of the Empire. From there, the Persian Empire grew to encompass a great area – most notably parts of India, Babylon, Egypt, Palestine and Lydia, a fabulously wealthy Empire whose defeat meant that Persia’s control over Asia Minor was total. In its time it was the biggest empire that had ever existed, and the Persians rose from a small, subjugated tribal group to overthrow many powerful and well-established kingdoms to expand their empire through a series of impressive military feats. The way in which it grew its empire in such a short period of time makes its conquests almost unrivalled by other

Religious rhetoric certainly still appeals to certain Iranian factions, but a big fraction of the country’s population values its national identity over its religious one. By understanding this, President Ahmadinejad and his circle focused on nationalism, and made it an essential component of their rhetoric, especially in the context of nuclear program. During Ahmadinejad’s tenure, the nuclear issue became a matter of factional rivalry and state legitimacy and a symbol of Iran’s independence. Ahmadinejad, by constantly referring to the nuclear program as Iran’s disputable right and western attempts to refuse it, he triggered Iran’s victimhood and the need for resistance and used it as a tool to mobilize domestic opinion, to inflate his position

Iran has always, it seems, been the breeding ground for some kind of political upheaval or another. In recent times, back in 1979, there was a major revolution which was, in some ways, similar to the revolution we are seeing today. The people were angry and they were tired of being controlled by the government that was in power. They had concrete ideals and were incredibly passionate about their revolution. The revolution Iran is experiencing today does not appear to be quite as passionate and does not appear to maintain a belief in any real solid political system. They just know they want something different. In the following paper we present an illustration of the current revolution that is taking

The emergence of the Islamic Republic in late 1970’s Iran demonstrates how middle class Iranian people purged themselves of the Pahlavi Dynasty in an effort to continue down a more righteous and egalitarian path. As a result, the country underwent a complete social upheaval and in its place grew an overtly oppressive regime based in theoretical omnipotence. In response to this regime, the very structure of political and social life was shaken and fundamentally transformed as religion and politics became inexorable. As a result, gender roles and the battle between public and private life were redrawn. Using various primary and secondary sources I will show how the Revolution shaped secular middle class Iranians. Further, I will show how the