Republics of Myth

National Narratives and the US-Iran Conflict

By: Hussein Banai, Malcolm Byrne, John Tirman

Narrated by: Chris Sorensen

Why does the rift between the US and Iran persist?

Iran and the United States have been at odds for forty years, locked in a cold war that has run the gamut. In Republics of Myth, Hussein Banai, Malcolm Byrne, and John Tirman argue that a major contributing factor to this tenacious enmity is how each nation views itself. Their often-deadly confrontation derives from the very different national narratives that shape their politics, actions, and vision of their own destiny in the world.

The dominant American narrative is the myth of the frontier—that the US can tame it, tame its inhabitants, and nurture democracy as well. Iran, conversely, can claim two dominant myths: the first, an unbroken (but not for lack of trying) lineage back to Cyrus the Great, and the second, the betrayal of Imam Hussein, the Prophet's grandson.

From the coup d'etat that overthrew Iran's legitimate premier Mohammad Mosaddeq to the hostage crisis, the Iran-Iraq War, the 1996 Khobar Towers bombing, post-9/11 antagonisms, each episode illustrates anew the weight of historical narratives on present circumstances. Republics of Myth makes a major contribution to understanding this vital conflict.

©2022 Hussein Banai, Malcolm Byrne, and John Tirman (P)2022 Tantor

good review of Iran's post-revolution history

I enjoyed reviewing the post-revolutionary history of Iran and also the notion of narratives. What the authors call US narrative was clearly described, however, the description doesn't sound particularly American as similar ideas applies to all imperial powers including x-imperial Persia of a few centuries ago. All imperial powers like to expand and subdue weaker nations and might call other cultures and ways of life savage. On the Iranian side, the narrative should mostly be that of a nation that has lost its perceived past glory and has now resorted to xenophobia and anti-Semitism (at least for a little while of its modern history). The book avoids those notions and only focuses on a few past and present grievances, which is less helpful in understanding the dynamics of the present history.