ayatollah khamenei as characters in a unified narrative about the grade counterrevolutionary year of 1979 and it is your very provocative thesis that this was the year in which basically the backlash or the return of markets and religion to global politics in a big way signaled a counterrevolution toward the reactions of the earlier post-war era. you know, how did you come up with back? who could possibly write a book that says margaret thatcher, deng xiaoping, the ayatollah khamenei, the afghan communists and the iranian revolutionaries have in common nevermind pope john paul ii and the resurgence of religion as a factor in polish national life which is a whole fascinating part of the book. how did you come up with putting these things together? >> guest: well it had a lot to do with my reporting in afghanistan after 9/11. you were there too. actually if memory serves me we actually stayed in the same house for a while. you were with the "washington post" and i was with "newsweek" and that house kind of struck me at the time. it had this shag carpeting and it was a ranch style house
journals explaining why the masses were temporarily being seduced by ayatollah khamenei. in the end he said they were completely flummoxed. he basically said this was the end of the lot of communist and socialist believers in the middle east because it just ceased to be a viable alternative. people didn't want it. >> host: i think that's an important note for us and on. we are almost out of time but not entirely. i want to bring out this question we were debating before which is what is not in the book one of the most significant things were talking about. there's a great other book for someone in the rise of the personal computer which happened in 1979 time period battisti technology is playing a role even backstage in the hands of this new order? >> guest: absolutely. the rise of telecommunications is important. ayatollah khamenei was in exile for much of the iranian revolution be communicated through the state-of-the-art telephone switching system that have been installed by the americans for the shah. you could call anyone in iran at a moments notice and it was hugely important for
administration to reach out to have leverage in side the islamic republic after the ayatollah khamenei died. when we look at the president of on this first inaugural address, let me backtrack. recent history is 1,000 years ago but in the united states going back for years it is ancient history but people don't think about moving 1,000 miles away. but to ask iran to stretch out that with george h. w. bush that is much of the same theme we don't need to assume this must go on forever. twice i can think of a time when the republic shot -- shifted positions with what it would take to release the american end hostages the second is what it would take to end the iran-iraq war. if you read what warren christopher edited with different chapters contributed by all different policy makers and so forth forth, they came to a basic conclusion it was persistence of diplomacy that led to the release of the hostages. the late peter bobbins wrote in 1981 that they got it backwards that the key episode that led to the committee changes his mind is saddam hussain invaded iran and had increased exponentially.
Fetching more results