Good book. Oren is a Jewish/Israeli leader (thus I would expect a bias), but I thought he was very fair and I could not detect any particular slant.

Touched on a lot of topics in the middle east in which I was was interested and/or unaware.
* The Barbary Wars
* United States missionaries' role in education and cultural change in the Middle East as far back as while our west was being settled.
* Partitioning of the middle east and the lack of US control (and reasons)
* The catch 22 (that we still find ourselves today) of failing to react on Arab actions, fearing that our reaction will only foment more and more arab outrage (goes back 200 years.)
* Turkey's historical role in the region and it's own geonocide against the Armenians.
* Understood more why President Carter seemed to favor the Arabs side.
* Interesting tracking of the continued anti-semetic views of leaders throughout history. Jewish leaders criticized for being tough negotiators or obstinent, while pretty vile Arab leaders seemginly get a pass.
* he also interestingly reviewed the history of Hollywood's movies that romanticized the middle east and/or the arab cutlure/male (i.e.-Lawrence of Arabia, etc)

All good stuff and also showing even more the complexity of the US's role in the region and obsticles to peace,

Growing up, I never knew much about the Middle East. I've started to try to learn, because these days no one has the luxury of being ignorant or indifferent to what's going on. This book was a useful overview and introduction. It brought together the topics of my other independent studies: church history, literary and political figures, and American slavery. Everything is brought together in a narrative that focuses on how the US has perceived the Middle East.

I don't know how much I'll retain, but I certainly got the message that the present state of the world has its bloody roots, and that getting out of it is not simple. Everything is urgent, yet any decision leaves no side content. Making things supremely intractable is that for many Christians and Muslims, what happens in the Middle East and to Israel is the lead-up to the Apocalypse itself...and such apocryphal teachings have been mixing with political and military decisions for hundreds of years. There were many points in the book that I had to pause, because of simply feeling sad.

I'm hoping to read other books on these topics. I'd recommend this book to anyone else who is looking for an overview of the history of US relations with the region, particularly from the US's perspective.

P.S. - This was a particularly dark and wry comment: "'We want them to become Christians,' he admitted, 'but in Arabia that is an extremely slow process.' To expedite the procedure, Harrison expanded his medical services in the years before World War I..." (p.408)

Once again I find myself giving Michael Oren five stars and warning people away from his book. Five stars for a thoroughly researched and highly informative read, to be sure. But expect a pretty long slog.

This ambitious tome describes the interactions between the United States and the Middle East from the point of the United States' inception, starting with the Barbary Wars. Oren uses the themes of power (the U.S. wanted control, initially in terms of wanting to pass through the region safe from pirates but gradually in other areas as well), faith (the desire on the part of the U.S. to missionize in the Middle East and to restore the Jews to their homeland in Palestine for religious reasons), and fantasy (the often unrealistic image Americans have had of the Middle East as depicted in the Arabian Nights) to categorize the various interactions between the U.S. and the Middle East. He notes that, although much has changed, all three themes remain relevant to U.S.-Middle East relations.

One of the problems with reading a long and detailed book like this is that it's hard to know how much of the information you've retained, and will retain over time. In the meantime, though, I feel accomplished for having finished it and have a temporary illusion of being a well-informed person on this topic. That's worth something, I suppose. I also think that Obama and other government officials who want insight into the craziness that is the Middle East and some of America's missteps in the region would benefit from reading this book carefully.

I read this book to learn about the history of U.S. involvement in the Middle East. I did, thanks to Oren's research, narrative style and clear thesis, that the realities of power, the strength of religious forces in America and the fantasies of the area exposed by Edward Said are the key influences on the U.S. interactions with the peoples of the Middle East. Oren deftly relates the trade and other relations between the newly independent United States and the Maghrib states of Morocco, Algiers, etc. at the close of the eighteenth century. He continues with the struggle against the Barbary States in the early nineteenth century and the opening of relations with the Ottoman Empire. Oren's history filled in lots of gaps in my knowledge and clarified my understanding--he was particularly good on American Zionism and the rather strange ambivalence so many American political leaders seemed to have toward Jews. Lots of strengths to this book, and it seems to be the only comprehensive book on its subject.

This is a great read of the history of the U.S. in the Middle East. Much of the material is not well-known to Americans. I was fascinated by the stories of American efforts in the late 1700's and early 1800's to deal with pirates in the Mediterranean. Equally interesting were the accounts of American missionaries and their struggles mainly to survive and also to convert local Muslims to Christianity. The great legacy of these efforts were the wonderful American secondary schools and universities that were established in Cairo, Beirut and Istanbul. Sons of the early missionaries and educators then became diplomats and business people throughout the region. I had never heard of the cooperation of former Confederates and Union generals in Egypt after the Civil War to build the Egyptian army and help modernize the state. As American influence grew, the clash of American principles and American interests became more certain and more pronounced. Written by a brilliant Israeli scholar and diplomat, the book shows a fine understanding of American values and of the contradictions that the application of those values can entail. Because of the author's focus, he skims a bit lightly on Israeli actions in the region when he comes to descriptions of the events since 1948, but in fairness, his purpose was to talk about the American action and perspective and not to have a survey of all the views of various states in the region. Any American, and anyone anywhere with an interest in the Middle East, will enjoy this book and its accurate, thoughtful and insightful observations.

A mammoth tome (over 600 pages, plus endnotes and index) that at times bogs down.

This book really focuses on America's involvement in the Middle East (including North Africa), skipping over other events as much as possible and condensing the last 50 years into less than 100 pages (which is acknowledged by the author). The extreme focus of the narrative is a both a weakness and a strength: some of the events referenced briefly left me a bit confused due to lack of familiarity with them. Yet the strict focus helps put across the author's thesis and keeps the book from becoming any weightier than it already is.

The idea that America's behavior in and toward the Middle East has always been colored by a combination of the pursuit of power (mostly economic), faith (missionary work and/or Israel), and fantasy (an poor understanding of the region and it's people colored by undereducated leaders and unrealistic portrayals in fiction) is a reasonable idea reasonably well supported by the work.

My own conclusions are also that history teaches us the Middle East needs to be dealt with largely through consistent shows of strength; vacillating policy and signs of weakness merely undermine policy in this region as much as any other. I am pretty sure this was the conclusion I got from another book I've read relating the Middle East and/or terrorism, though I don't recall which one.

If you have ever wondered about how the US influenced the Middle East, this is a great book for you to read! Full of direct quotes, notes, and references it is a treasure trove of insight into the very fractious relationships that the US holds with the various countries that comprise the Middle East.

Power, Faith and Fantasy is a wonderful look at how the United States and the Middle East (includes North Africa, the Arabian Peninsula, Turkey and Iraq/Iran) as their relations progressed from 1776 to the most recent invasion of Iraq and Iran. Oren works through varying degrees of complexity to unravel the relations and power struggles between the United States and the Middle East as they evolved through motives of faith to the fantasy that drew travelers into the region. The book begins with the Barbary pirates and the United States attempt to take a moral stand against them and ends with the same analogy against Islamic terrorism. Overall the circular picture the book presents is well served. What is probably most interesting for those who know a little about this time is the extent to which American missionaries were involved in faith efforts throughout the Middle East. The book works in great detail up until World War II and then the speed version of that time period is given. It covers enough of the major highlights but it should be said it does not have the depth the rest of the book has. Overall Oren delivers another well researched and written book that stays on topic and provides new insights into an expanding area of scholarship.

Well-written and well-researched.

However, the book's main weakness is that it doesn't cover the era of the 20th century to today very well. Oren excuses himself by saying that plenty of works already exist on the subject, and only writes as much as is needed. Arguably, this is the section most readers will be interested in the most, and it, while decent, fails to deliver. And besides, the stories of American romantics and adventurers got repetitive and boring after a while, and you start to ask "who cares?" and "of what possible significance are they?"

As the book plunges into the 20th century it becomes less adequate. Oren explains that he does not feel obligated to give more than a brief survey of events in the Cold War and after simply because plenty of works are already availble on the subject. Maybe I'm being unfair, but this just seems like academic laziness to me. But even before the post-1948 survey, the desire to chronicle what happened seems to overwhelm any incisive interpretation. The significance of oil in shaping relations and policy is definitely described, but it seems like it deserves a more prominent place. Also, Oren makes this grand claim in the final pages of the book: "On balance, Americans historically brought far more beneficence than avarice to the Middle East and caused significantly less harm than good." Does the history of US relations with Middle Eastern states really support that analysis? How would one factor in US bolstering of dictatorial regimes in places like Saudi Arabia? Or the overturning of a nationalist Iranian government by the CIA? Oren's own history shows how little Americans actually understood about the region and its people, even as they attempted to shape its future. It seems unlikely that a basically imperial perspective could also coincidentally be the basis for a good policy that put the people of the Middle East first. Oren seems to be falling into the trap that he describes in his book. His final judgment oddly seems to reinforce the myths about the American role in the region as a champion of enlightenment. It understates how much US policy was driven fundamentally by what all states are driven by: strategic interests and demand for economic resources.

In chapter 5 Oren discusses the Greek revolution of 1821. Oren states that the Greeks were fighting for democracy and the US was in a dilemma between supporting a fledging democracy and its financial interest that depended on good relations with the Ottoman Empire. The truth is that the US had very little influence in the region at the time. Instead England, France, and Russia were fighting for influence in the new country (England won eventually). Also the Greek revolution was not for democracy but it had religious and ethnic motives. It was a revolt of (mostly Greek speaking) Orthodox Christians against a Muslim government. Early on the Greeks slaughtered all Muslims and Jews in Peloponese. Apparently, the slaughter was so extensive that our schoolbooks could not ignore it but described it as a "justified" over-reaction to long centuries of Ottoman suppression. In addition, the first governments of Greece were quite autocratic and even constitutional monarchy did not become stable until after 1860. So you may say, does it matter that Oren botched one event. Yes, it does.

There are a couple of significant weaknesses though, not the least of which is a problem with historical accuracy. In covering the early history between the U.S. and the Barbary States, Mr. Oren is correct to categorize Jefferson's conflict as a "de facto" war, but when looking at the 2nd War he specifically states that "Nearly three months passed before he [President Madison] went to Congress and asked for - and promptly received - a formal declaration of war." The problem is, that there was no formal declaration of war, but rather an authorization to use force. This is a rather key difference, and one which makes the reader question just how precise the author is actually being.

Another example, albeit less important, is when Mr. Oren discusses the national anthem and declares "Only after the Battle of Fort McHenry in the War of 1812 were the lyrics revised by their author Francis Scott Key." In fact, the "Star Spangled Banner" and "When the Warrior Returns" are two different poems, or sets of lyrics, which Francis Scott Key wrote to the tune of "The Anacreon Song" (a.k.a. "To Anacreon in Heaven"), an old English drinking tune. Mr. Oren also indicates that the song was written in honor of Stephen Decatur and William Bainbridge, but other sources indicate that it was in honor of Charles Stewart and not William Bainbridge.

This one took me a long time to read. Many stops and starts later, I’ve finished and am very glad a i read it. I thought it would give me insight into what’s happening in the Middle East today and it definitely did that.

Unsurprisingly, Middle Eastern issues are much more complicated than a first glance or the daily superficial news coverage can give us. The good news is that we have done many good things over the past 200 + years in the Middle East. The bad news is we’ve done some whoppingly bad ones too. This book was published in 2007. The author was optimistic then because he felt that the good we had done still out weighed the bad. I wonder if he’s still optimistic today?

If you, like me, wanted some context and background for our recent history with the Middle East, I recommend this book.

I only gave it a four because I felt like the end of the book was a bit rushed and not as substantial as the rest.

Surprisingly engaging for such a long history book. Also uncannily timely given the current escalation in the Israel-Palestine conflict. One critique I had is the amount of detail the author goes into from 1700-1930, which is fine -- but he then speeds through 1930-2007 which is where I would have appreciated some more detail to understand the current situations there. However, it was extremely educating and a great leaping off point! Highly recommend if you enjoy/are interested in reading history.

I finally finished this large book. I enjoyed it from beginning to end. The author presents his thesis of how power, faith, and fantasy have shaped the US's dealing with the Middle East from the beginnings of our nation in a lively and exceedingly interesting manner.

I learned much history that I was never aware of. For example, that Civil War veterans went to Egypt to help build an army. The strongest impression that the book made on me was to illustrate how only one man, the President of the US, ultimately made decisions that shaped the course of history. At every stage, there were strong forces on both sides of an issue, and so it came down to what the man in the White House decided.

An example of this: When the US entered WWI, we did NOT declare war on Turkey and so never sent any troops to the Middle East to fight against the Ottoman Empire. Wilson made this decision despite strong sentiment in the nation and congress to engage Turkey. The result was that the US had no ability to shape how the Ottoman Empire was carved up by England and France after the war.

I highly recommend this book, but be prepared to read it in small doses. It is worth the time and effort.