Overall, this is a book worth reading. A bit of a slog at times, finishing it became a matter of perseverance rather than interest. Given the overwhelming amount of detail, as well as a contrived personality sketch of seemingly every possible character that has been involved in U.S.-Middle East relations, I doubt how much information I’ll actually retain. However, I did leave the book with a much broader perspective of the historical connections between the regions, and there are definitely some juicy lesser-known facts—such as where the Statue of Liberty came from—that make the book worthwhile.

An excellent read to learn about the hard truths on the history of the Middle East and the United States.

Saw it on Book TV. Sounds like a readable overview of American involvement and makes motivations in the Middle East.

I am giving this 3 stars solely based on the amount of information included. Here is why it doesn't get a better rating.

The book starts with the very interesting Barbary Wars when the United States was brand new. It discusses the impacts that the pirates from Northern Africa had on the formation of our Navy and foreign policy.

After that there is 200 pages of discussion on missionaries and the schools and hospitals they built. This is also somewhat interesting, but I don't think so many of the different missionaries needed to be covered and quoted. There was some discussion of how the natives felt about the missionaries, but I would have preferred more of that than the elicit descriptions of the actual people and their quotes.

This problem persists throughout the book. When we arrive at WWI there is a discussion on the discovery of oil and the Americans involved. Only one paragraph discusses the small communities that these oil companies created and almost nothing about the Saudi populations reaction. Maybe that information doesn't exist, but I am pretty sure it does because I have read about it in other books.

The author then covers the last 30 years in about 100 pages, which he explains that there is so much information already available. He should have stopped there. At times he clearly states where Israel and America have gone against previously stated policies or actions, but then at the end of each chapter he actual makes it seem as though the policy is successful. His section on Reagan is the most blatant, Reagan stumbled through the Middle East during his presidency, but at the end he gives Reagan credit.

I just think there should have been more direct discussion of the impact of the oil companies and more criticism of Israel for some of their responses and our failure to pressure them.

I am not saying that Michael Oren doesn't try to be unbiased, but I felt in many cases, regardless of the politics more details are needed. For a 600 page book I shouldn't need to refer to other books.

But the thing that bothered me the most was his defense of Israel's assertation after occupying the West Bank and Gaza as just following the Post WWII guidelines. The part that is missed is that so much of the problems we face today is because of the restorationist movements existence at all. For a book that covers this much history, to act like the first 150 years was just meant to be misses the point of his own book.

Also, Michael Oren is currently the Israeli ambassador to the US. Take that how you want.

Really interesting take on how the Middle East played such a big part in American history, and vice versa, starting right after the Revolutionary war. Towards the end it begins to feel weaker, as Oren has to start recapping history that isn't nearly as overlooked as the meat of this book. Where originally he can pretty much assume that the reader knows practically nothing about the material, around the fifties and on events start to become common knowledge and I get the impression he's trying not to run subjects into the ground that everyone is already familiar with.

Also, the central premise holds up very well until the timeline nears the present. Particularly the fantasy portion, which is supported by evidence enough that I think it is an accurate description of America's general perception of the region, but that perception changed in the middle of the last century.

رائع ومميز ومشوق
"كما أنه يبرهن على أنك لا تستطيع أن تفهم قضية ما حق الفهم حتى تعرف تاريخها"

This author exceeded my expectations, really fantastic. Great writing.

A rather old-fashioned book. A series of picaresque narratives of Americans doing American things in strange foreign lands. The natives don't get a serious treatment. Not worth reading on anything after 1948 -- the last hundred 0r so pages of the book -- but amusing and readable on everything before that.

This well-researched, well-organized, well-written book by Michael Oren is essential reading for any American who wants to more fully understand the history of U. S. interactions in the Middle East. American involvement in that region of the world, as with most regions, has been complicated throughout our history as a nation, to put it mildly. We have always had a hard time "choosing sides," as it were, because it has been genuinely difficult to tell what the sides are. This is especially true today and makes U.S. policies and interventions extremely convoluted and inconsistent. Oren's explorations of the intersections of power, faith, and fantasy in regards to the Middle East generally fall into the category of description rather than pure explanation, which is probably more historically modest and academically honest. While he certainly implicates American energy interests as a primary factor, he also asserts that Americans have generally brought more beneficence than avarice, and more advancement than detriment to the area. If you disagree or are intrigued by that claim, you may want to read the book and let Oren make his case. The only reason I don't give thus book five stars is that I save that distinction for books that are truly transformative for me personally. While this book is incredibly informative and his invitation at the end is inspiring, it didn't move me to action the way some other books do.

Ambassador Oren's book is stellar. It would be misleading to call it a survey of U.S. - Middle East diplomatic relations from Barbary to Bush, since that would hide the book's breadth, as well as its depth and thematic cohesiveness. After 9/11, it is easy to see our relations with the Middle East and its peoples as starting after WWII, but our relationship with that region is far deeper, as illustrated by Amb.Oren. A taste of the themes he reflects upon are the role of Barbary in our decision to unite the States and fund a navy, the "Jewish" post once reserved at the State Dept vs. later Arabists, the slow drum beat of Protestant restorationism that preceded G.W. Bush for 150 years, the contribution of missionary education to anti-colonialism and support for nationalism in the region (later compromised by oil needs), and the impact of American Middle East romaticism on American culture (from recreations of Egypt at county fairs to The Sheik to Art Deco to Midnight at the Oasis).

A striking discourse of not only the Middle East but America's ever-changing view of Foreign Policy. Oren goes to great lengths to retrace history through America's greatest strengths and most harrowing weaknesses within the region.

I appreciate how balanced Oren is in his approach, taking great care to call out American naivety and outright failure, while still providing due credit to it's true victories.

A fascinating overview of American involvement in the Middle East, built around the three themes given in the subtitle. The great strength of the work is its consideration of both governmental and non-governmental interactions. It is also notable for its constant focus on the region, rather than only highlighting "important" episodes.