the us government's efforts to stop terrorists from coming into the country through the us-mexico border. political analyst jonathan alter recalls the life of former president jimmy carter. the american enterprise institute john 48 presents his guide to understanding the electoral college. the impact of writers like james baldwin, martin luther king jr. and malcolm x and jennifer jennifer o'meara profiles isabel blackwell, two of the first women to receive medical degrees in the united states. find more information at booktv.org or consult your program guide. >> welcome to the center for brooklyn history thought. tonight we are focusing on the complicated centuries old relationship between america and iran with expert john ghazvinian whose new book is titled america and iran, a history 20/20 to the president.

for i introduced john and his conversation partner hooman majd let me say a word about the center for brooklyn history. my name is marcia ely and i'm director of programs at the center which was formerly the brooklyn historical society is now a part of the brooklyn public library. in addition to stewarding the most extensive collection of brooklyn history in the world and in addition to our research and education activities, every week the center for brooklyn history offers free public programs like this one group dls programming arm bpl presents. the next few weeks, bph and dpr presents will be hosting programs with naomi klein, marcia guessing, roxanne gave me. i hope you'll go to the brooklyn public library's website to find the dpr presents page and explore what's coming up.

i also want to share 2 important notes. first we will put in the chat link to purchase america and around locally at the community bookstore you're in brooklyn and i encourage you all to buy a copy of this book. and second, i want to invite everyone to share your questions for john throughout the program. type them into the q and a box at the bottom of your screen . and now it's my great pleasure to welcome john ghazvinian and hooman majd and tell you a bit about each of them. john ghazvinian was raised in london and los angeles, born in iran. he has a doctorate in history from oxford university and his writing has appeared in newsweek, the sunday times, the new statesman and the nation. he directs the middle east center at the university of pennsylvania and lives in philadelphia.

hooman majd is an hour in american writer and the writer of three books on iran including the new york times best seller the ayatollah base to differ. he has written for the new yorker, gq, newsweek, new york times, new republic, vanity fair and many other publications. he is a contributor to nbc news and he lives in new york city. and i want to welcome you both and thank you so much for being here and i turn it over to you. >> thank you marcia, thank you for that lovely introduction and reduction for the center for brooklyn history. it's good to see you. >> thank you for having me. >> i'll start by saying you're wearing a jacket, i'm wearing a tie . between us we can look somewhat like professionals and were both wearing pants and i will say that. >> i know i am. i assume you are to. >> anyway, welcome and with

this terrific new book of yours i think is really also very timely given the news cycle right now and the idea of around once again being in the forefront of international relations with the united states. before we get into the book which i really enjoyed reading because it kind of felt like a story to me and less like an academic tome where you have to figure out what's going on. it felt like you were telling a story of this history of the iran and the united states which we know from your books and anyone paying attention to not start in 1979 when there was an islamic revolution. many people including myself did not know it went all the way back to 1722. i know about the 19th century and the person ambassadors, i did not know when back as far as 17.2 and had this

fascination with persia that was known then as the persian empire before i asked you some questions about the book and you tell us what made you write this book and what exactly is your background? i know you were born in iran but tell us a little bitmore about that . >> and i want to thank the publication and say thank you to the center for brooklyn history for inviting me this evening and thanking everyone who's coming to us. and just to say what a great honor is it is to be here. the first time i've actually met some of you face-to-face but i've been reading your stufffor many years and i've really enjoyed the eiffel ayatollah base to differ . it's just a real privilege and thank you for sharing virtual stage with me. i'm looking forward to the conversation so thank you . and by the way, i also love

that you feel that read like a story because that is something that's important to me . i don't know whether i would was even doing this or not but it's something i always try and my writing, i'm a great believer of the idea that as historians wehave a responsibility to tell a story . we are uniquely positioned i think in many ways to be able to do that because at the end of the day this is what we do and that is the nature of our ability and if we aren't able to bring the human stories to life , i'm not sure what you're doing. so i would like to write this book in a way that we be valuable to experts to scholars through our research for this book and i hope i brought some fresh information to life that people can know about also i wanted to be a book where you could give to your uncle or your ad for your grandfather who loves to read history and hoped it would be an enjoyable story as well but to answer your question about me and how i came to this, i was born in iran andi was one

year old with we moved so i grew up outside london . the high school we moved to a place where much to many people surprised i had a single iranian friend and we've known each other i would say iranian or not indefinitely and we hung out a lot. so it wasn't actually in weird ways as part of my upbringing. i went as an undergrad on the east coast and i went back to the uk for grad school for my phd in england for a few years and i bounced around a lot. not nearly as much as you have actually but for a lot of my life i studied british history asan undergrad . in the 16th century british history although i wrote my dissertation on friday in the persian empire so that's like a lot of people of middle eastern heritage i found after september 11 that it was difficult to ignore the

region. i think that being iranian, i wouldn't say i never missed anything but it was not a big part of what i was interested in pursuing intellectually or otherwise began to change gradually over the last couple of decades . my first book as a journalist was about africa but for the second book i want i think come to iran in someway . and i thought i'm a historian so what about the history of my country and of course it's been done before, they have written an excellent history and others have as well but what can i bring to the situation? one is reading the story all the way back to the beginning. >> is great, and my background is civics and i'm much older sadly but i predate the revolution. also in iran i was about eight months old.

i myself, my. my father, american school and boarding school in england and back to the states. when i was growing up, my classmates didn't know what iran was. they didn'tcare . it was not in use, and for and unless current relations around was not on anyone's radar. some people have heard of the persian empire but even in school we wrote the greeks and romans, we can study the persian empire . it wasn't commonly known and after the revolution suddenly i was in college at the time suddenly everyone knew iran in 1979 but hardly anyone knew there was this long long history of being allies, being friends, just a fascination on both sides and you really get into this in the book.

can you tell me a little bit about the very beginning because i think this is interesting a lot of people watching and who will read the book is outdated start and why did the us and iran which was 8000 miles away at the time before the us existed when itwas still the colonies , how did this fascination begin? >> just a part of the history that i think is absolutely fascinating and that i could spend hours and hours going on about what the short version is one of the first things i noticed when i started reading other people's history of the us iran relations is they all began around 1940. i understand why that is because before pearl harbor, the us was basically an isolationist power and around my as well have been

antarctica.there were no significant interest in that part of the world so the feeling is why study the relationship? i think that makes sense in a way but it's also a problematic way because basically what's that saying is the history of us iran relations only begins when the us as a common interest in what i realized in doing research for this book was just how much a myth is when we do that that the fact that for 19 years being back to the iran was very interested in getting the us more and more involved. really wasn't interested. that's also an important part of the story because washington wasn't interested at the there wasn't anything going on. the mere fact iran, the success of the iranian government developed without interest with the united states in order to send a message to british and russian empires that were pressuring iran and, there

was fascination arranged so iran developed a so-called third force, either alliance so that it could have a way of relations with russia united states what country they kept turning to . why is denmark they believe that the us as a country that had had a revolution against the british empire against imperialism would understand! . the us seems to the country that didn't care about empire . and the was almost like the more the us ignored iran more iran was like the us. admire the fact that the us was hands-off in its foreign policy admired that the uswas progressing economically and militarily politically in many ways . but they admire the fact that it didn't have an embassy in iran and the only americans

who were these presbyterian missionaries around government were not interested or involved. that was very feeling more than about america more they like. that alone is interesting. the first disagreement with the us and around have with eachother was in the 1850s . and this went on for several years and it was when they were trying to negotiate your first three . in 1851 they try and they began negotiating and they didn't actually come to an agreement until 1856. that took longer to negotiate on the nuclear deal, the jcp okay. you kind of think what with the us and iran argue about in the 1850s ? this. they're arguing about many things but one of the most important was the iranians wanted the us more involved in their affairs and the us was saying we don't want to tell you what to do, we don't want to getinvolved in your

business . iran requested american warships in the persian gulf and requested rights to fly with shipping in the persian gulf to send a message to britain and the us the course had no handling alliances, we don't want any part of it. the first disagreement countries saturday looking back at 70 years later that this is where relations began with the us they don't get involved in your business and iran say we want you more involved in our business. that's a political element and i'll stop here because i want to focus not just on politics but we can start the beginning of diplomatic relations what makes the us is unique is unlike britain and russia and many of the european powers its relationship with iran goes back well before any political diplomatic relations. there was presbyterian missionaries but also in mentality , sort of cultural baggage americans and iran

brought with this class there was thisfascination with persia . persia sounds the western ears much prettier than iran or however it is for next. and particularly after the revolution ran is less interested in committing people in terms of being a fascinating place, it's with bearded men and headscarf covered women but there was assassination. going back to the 1700s where you start your book, the fascination with persia. i assume the educated ones, how do you even know about persia, what was the impetus for people to see that ? >> i never expected to find this because what would someone in the 18th century even know about the persians and where wouldthey get their

plight ? so what really amazes me is i started looking at i could go on for a long time but the first i start looking at the first newspapers published in north america in philadelphia andboston . and this is before the us even existed. they were obsessed with iran. 20 to 30 percent of the weekly newspapers were devoted to what was happening in iran . they were, i need i even came across one newspaper where the headline that we regret to have no news from persia. that was the headline in philadelphia or boston i forget in 1720. the leading story was we're sorry, we don't have any news iran . you don't expect to find that going in and the reasons for that are complex but very briefly, iran was 80 news story, there was a rebellion against the persian empire in

1722 afghans, the rebellion in these the persians were trying to force afghans to convert sunni to shiite islam . the americans assumed that because of the sunni shia they must have been colluding with the ottoman empire which was of course the evil empire with the barbarous charts and the court say and had only started because the persians and ottomans were rivals , the great powers of the muslims they, and he must be my enemy, they all hated the evil turks and the fact that they were shia and therefore viewed by the majority sunni world is somehow less muslim and heretics, made and even more appealing. they were seen as less muslim somehow and i came across a newspaper that described the rivalry between ottomans and persians as the conflict between muslims andpersia which is an interesting way to present it .

the southeast don't say that. >> this was this idyllic and on top of that there was this back iran and the persian empire wasn't in control of their religious side from jerusalem and on, that you talk about where they get their information but puritans especially in new england were calvinists and they believed in the bible as the ultimate word of god so they want to know about the middle east they could open up the vinyl and when you open a final iran looks good because you have virus liberating jews from babylonian captivity and you have thisgreen magi , i always remind people of the magi, which means multiple all are zoroastrian priests, they were probably arabian but iran looks good in the mine. and it looks like arrivals of babylon which is the great evil of thebabylonians which the ottomans had seen as kind of inherited that . there's all these weird reasons in the mentality

american statement to but to that point they hadn't had any contact with iran. the first missionary on the years later justin perkins in 1834, the first word used by what he saw was the word used was ea. literally this was like the garden of eden, it was like a paradise . they believe the garden he was eating was somewhere around muzzle in iraq and the persian empire began just slightly east of eden so eat of all these sites and it was therefore not a kind of threat to christian europe or to their kind ideology so in so many ways it seems like this harmless exotic oriental kingdom slightly to the east of all the harassment turks and muslims and the things they hate was somehow messed evil. i argue that mentality is to let us in the 1980s whenyou look at the way americans talk about . when they talk about the shop talk about this kind of american exotic to the east

of the troublesome world. and maybe how much of that i is with us and iran's own version of. >> that's absolutely fascinating, the idea that a newspaper have to apologize for not having news from persia today we have to apologize for having too much news from persia do you think there was a period, in terms of the american population, general population not going back to 1722 in general over the lasthundred years , maybe even from world war ii let's say you a general image of the iran has been for americans has been like iran this great nation all the way into 70s and it's an interesting place, great carpet,interesting cats . good this ãyears and but kind of like lovely people because we were here in

america back then. we were over there. but there was a point at which iranians started america differently my curiosity is in your research did you find areas started to see america is not quite the benevolent force that it was in 1944 or in 1953? we will get to 53 later in world war ii and i'll let you talk about, how the us along with russia and great britain. now the three great partners partners that are allied because of the war came and the closed the shop at the time in favor of his son who was viewed to be more malleable and the shop at the time was viewed to be pro-german and hackensack been sympathetic to the nazis . >> that's a great question, very rich question and it's

almost like three or four questions in one. that's fine. it's a great question this idea was there ever a golden age of relations. i kinda set up the book at the beginning by saying you probably if you're coming to this book know about 1979 and the hostage crisis and all that stuff especially if you're american and iranians have their own version of 1953, overthrew a popular prime minister but i'm not going to assume everyone knows all this but a lot of people do you want to focus too much on it. a lot of times people, especially anyone who is critical of us policy and you want to blame the us for you mentioned the 1950s and this kind of time when everything changed in the us overthrew a popular government and there was a lot against the us

particularly among educated middle-class, they were the people that should have been the most pro-american and were up until 53. but i think what's interesting, i don't want to challenge any of that never existed, everything changed three so what they look like? ask people who want to insist onthree as the original sin , there's something or feeling everything was great until the us overthrew most in and tell me how, in the way. this idea that they were better one point but what did it look like? what did the 1940s, 1930s look like? you could talk about that period as the closest we ever came to a golden age of us iranian relations and it might be familiar to a certain generation of iranians, probably very familiar in your family as i

imagine an old great elder statesman of foreign policy and diplomacy also former ambassador to the us, you look back in the early 1920s and he loved going around all the towns in middle america and the line used was time for us to get beyond tax and carpets and i was reminded of that when you were setting up the question about carpets and distasio's and so forth. but that's the extent to which most americans understood iran most americans april 19, 1953 when they look to the us as this wild west exciting cowboys and indians, john wayne movies kind of glamorous prosperous kind of place that seemed to be benign in a lot of ways and wasn't imperialistic and so on and there was a lot of this kind of will sony and ideas of the 1920s and there were pro-american rights on the

streets of iran in 1919 . it really is something that's extraordinary to think about today. but i forgot your original question. >> basically it was way too long of a question and i apologize for that but we can get to that 50s, posted 53 period with a lot of people are more aware of but to 44 and 53 when you have this young shop completely inexperienced, how old was he ? he was 20 years old or something. his father had been sent into exile by these great powers in that short period, i happen to know for a fact that only because of my own family's history america was still considered this great place and described by the educated class or whatever you want to call them and people preferred to buy a whirlpool dishwasher if they could, but it really is his

washers or washingmachines or whatever it is, refrigerators . and we could even see and i remember like in iran in the late 60s, the bowling alley of tel aviv avenue was the hot place to go and i actually remember seeing the son at the bowling alley surrounded by bodyguards one time. he must have been like 10 years older something in the late 60s, early 70s but there was this affection that iranians have things american and for america itself and obviously there was always dissent. dissent by the clerics and religious class, the very religions that the job was too secular and i assume that went back to this morning as well that was my original question. >> we have more interesting things to talk about now but the 1940s is by itself a

fascinating period most americans don't know that the us was one of the three occupying forces, one of the three occupying powers along with the soviet union and great britain and it was the first large-scale interactions between ordinary iranians and americans, 30,000 gis were stationed from 1943 to 45 as part of the persian gulf command. they unleashed supplies from the british physicians in the persian gulf. and this was there were many spaces with iran and my own father told stories about kind of you can call these guys johnny as they walk by these gis and how they used to go to troubles and so on and it wasn't necessarily a very dignified introduction to americans per se but you know, i think that's there's a lot we could sayabout the war years . i like what you're saying about the 1960s and look, it

happens gradually. there is a gradual disillusionment and you're right, i think the middle persians were educated, bourgeois and probably their last disillusioned with the united states. i think it starts the same with religious figures but it starts particularly from the 1960s and more noticeably but as i say in the book, the united states finds itself in an awkward position by the 1970s because you have these three main threads of opposition to the shop. the left which is composed of all these marxist, socialist, maoist bends and the old democrats and kind of growing religious radical i don't want to say religious right, i don't want to think and write left terms with conservatives but what is

ironic was all three of these were very angry with the shop by the 1970s but all three of them or their own different reasons, americans had a reason for being angry with them and that was a potent mix. sort of a lethal cocktail that exploded which is i know on the left they didn't need a lot of reasons but also the hard left wasgoing to hate the united states . it's kind of an obvious reasons, they hate capitalism or whatever and the us government is the embodiment of all these things. the religious figures, through much of their history have been for the left much of its history was kind of pro-soviet and very institutional in the sudan and so on. anti-american but not really radicalized. the new generation was elected by the 1970s and the maoists and so on were much more instrumental in the same with the religious movements, they had been

pro-establishment figures up until the 1940s, 50s, 60s but by the 60s they had started to become more angry with the idea of question western decadence and the sort of anti-religious qualities of the charlotte regime was taking on and the us with the obvious embodiment of that but in the middle you have these liberal nationalists under normal circumstances would have been the ones to bring everybody together in the middle and say america is not so bad. but these are the people who had been naturally pro-western and pro-american they were still nursing the grievance of 1953 that the us had given them and taken their hero and overthrown so they had their own reasons for hating the us, to be disillusioned with the us and say we believe in liberal democracy but where has a bus? we had petitions andpolitical parties and newspapers and where did it get us ? so all three of these are

very different reasons for being angry with the shop and his increasingly repressive regime but also of the us which was backing the shop and you can see looking back none of this would have ended well. >> what's interesting is that during this period of the mid 60s i'd say when khomeini was expelled from iran to the late 70s, we can't not talk about the repression and as you had social freedoms explode in iran for minorities, for women and for just generally for people who in the big cities certainly those freedoms exploded and looking to thewest , iranians immediately look to america. they want to come here and go to school, i remember in the early 70s when i first went to college only there was this influx iranians, maybe

one otheriranians in the entire school and suddenly there were 2000 . so people wanted to come here and get educated or from other front but more to america and while they were getting educated they were also being watched by some operatives because i remember this well. in iran you would recognize a non-iranian that was come to these federation students meeting and my father had always morning , stay away from those people because someone has infiltrated them and you will be on the list and it will be a problem and so i had little political ambition at the time, i thought i'd i'm not going to get into politics but there was this absolute resentment of the shop. both for the repression but also for the fact that i remember people saying aren't you upset that the shot takes orders from the american ambassador? i didn't know the shop support event nor did i know that he took orders but he certainly publicly at least met with the american

ambassador more than he would meet withanyone else . any other foreign or let's say on a regular basis and there was very much this impression that the shah was doing america's bidding and that for people who had suddenly been exposed to the west and educated and social freedoms, wanted more political freedom was half of them area and so obviously we can go to what brought about the actual revolution but certainly the middle class was definitely disillusioned by the time these american politics and the american political system but by the time of the revolution and i would add i remember iran was being very much involved following the civil rights movement in the united states. being pro-civil rights, pro-protesters, following the vietnam war. one guy told me once after the revolution he said

students were killed before the revolution and was protesting the shop. and policemen were beating these iranian protesters and black policeman started hitting him with a baton and he had called out brother, why are you getting me and the guy said i'm not your brother and it's the first time i realized maybe americans don't understand us. maybe where not quite as well understood as we thought we were that we are on the same side of the oppressed. so that's interesting but what are your thoughts on repression, on the way that this middle-class stood by as this revolution happened partly because i think they resented the way the shop had governed. >> as i look into that story, iranians i think like many i don't know if we're uniquely iranian but some iranians do

have this solipsistic worldview that everything, people are thinking about them more than they actually are and i think there is that, you see that in this idea that you write , the anti-vietnam, antiwar movement very much influenced the iranian left and thewhole global left . and we see that for example when the hostage crisis took place in 1975 and it's that famous moment which we've already got where when the students storm the embassy and their carryingthe signs and saying we just want to sit in, we want to have the city . which remember this is 1979. that word now is really been absorbed into our vocabulary but at the time was this trendy new thing and protest movements in the us, having ascended. they were adopting that language because they thought they had watched kent state on television and they

genuinely believe that by emulating the anti-vietnam war protesters that americans be sympathetic and in fact you read some of theirmemoirs , there's really fascinating point when they started having parading their hostages they genuinely thought the american public was so angry with its government and with the vietnam war and everything that they would, they believed the us was full of idealistic young people all being beaten by police all the time and or chicago in 1958. and therefore the american people would just, it's a weird parallel to today but they believed the us and the american people would just be repressed by their regime and waiting to rise up against evil riyadh and you know, some of them were immediately identified and took over the embassy and started talking

about the return of the shop that americans would rally to their side and of course it's a big mistake when you look back with respect to the exact opposite happened. you take dozens of americans hostage like that and you're not going to get it through the american public rally to your side. i think that's been tested a lot there was nacvetc on the part of the hostage takers thinking they were going to get some support from the kind of people who today would be like bernie sanders supporters. that's who they were thinking was going to be like right on, you're giving it to the man. as it were. and going back to this idea that the iranians had middle-class or college educated iranians inside iran and this idea of minority americans oppressed by their regime. as we know also any

institution can tell us very shortly after the hostage crisis all the black employees at the embassy and military were released. they did not spend 1 and a half years in the embassy in prison conditions but anyway, we are getting very close to the time when i should take these questions because i think i'm seeing questions role in so i'm going to start by saying the first question is what were you expecting to discover when you startedthis book and how did that change ? how did your opinions change? >> i didn't go into this with expecting anything in particular other than just sort of understandingthe history of us iran relations better than i did .>> i guess the question is what surprised you most? we talked about some of the surprises you had going back to 1722 but is there one thing that stands out in granite and us relations in the last 300 years?

>> the big surprise was to discover how warm the relationship was for so long. you look at to be preconceived notions of history, the last 40 years felt like a blip. doesn't characterize this relationship has been like for the overwhelmingmajority of history . there was this great mutual admiration and even a mutual idealization dating back to the 18th and 19th century. and overall that was the big surprise is just how positively these people look at one another . you look at the new england, there was this book that generations of american schoolchildren learn how to read . and around the 1680s, up

until the 1920s, more than 200 years this was the main way you learned your abcs and it was a bunch of rhymes and it illustrated the bible and things like that. k was adam's fall, we sing all and b was i forget but you have to read this book. b was the bible and you get to the letter m and it's not a xylophone just how all of us learn the letter x and it's the only word any of us can think of to this day it starts with it was xerxes the great gig i and so much to you and i. generations of american schoolchildren learn the letter x by learning the word xerxes. it rolls comfortably off the tongue of american schoolchildren for centuries and that the awareness and interest of a certain kind of

idea about the persians just disappeared at a certain point but it was there up until the 1950s i would argue . >> that's fascinating and one thing we should say and you who have been to iran and conducted research for this book and all the journalists, american journalists, iranian journalists, anybody you ask to this day if you ask an iranian on the streets of tehran or any iranian citizen what do you think of the american people, not the american regime it will be overwhelmingly positive. i found in my own research with the books and traveling to be in conversations with fellow journalists and authors to be one of the things that actually amazes most americans who do and up beingable to visit iran and all these tours that go on , people sign up for two or to iran, the iranian people are so friendly . it is interesting that that's

something , the revolution didn't change. even among the most hardline people, you had president ahmedijian, that he was maybe the worst representative of iranian hospitality but i think it's a good point to bring up that i don't think that's changed but unfortunately there's this idea that the iranian people are represented by the people who aren't subtle in the way that they don't like the american government or american foreign policy byfor example burning american flags . they get to america, things like that it's like they must not, they must hate us all and that's been an unfortunate thing. i'm going to go to a couple more questions because they're running quickly out of time and wecan talk for hours about this book . i got one question that says

i've heard there's a lot of corruption in the iran, true. it wasn't something that always existed no matter who was in charge . and can you illuminate on the. construction is something that comes up all the time which the third world or developing countries so it's aninteresting question . >> is one of these things that i think it's something that's always with us and it's a relative concept. yes, there is plenty of corruption in iran today. itwas a regime as well and gotten worse in recent years. this is a very loaded question . because i think the answer to this depends on how you feel about the iran republic. it's critics like to focus on the corruption that has gotten worse in recent years and it has been that's a legitimate thing to foresee. i do think there's another point of view does say when you absolutely throttle an economy the way that the united states has in recent

years with the kinds of extreme actions , i don't want to say that that justifies or explains or somehow necessarily, but it tends to make things worse. it's natural to find ways around the sanctions and that's when sort of shady operators start to come in. but it's certainly an issue. it's been an issue andyes, it's not a moment i'm qualified to speak on . >> i think it's a good answer, i think corruption is related to the pressure which isn't entirely, it's not the us's fault, iran has done things haven't been helpful in terms of it and i think iranians would agree inside and outside. in terms of the relationship. under the organization things got particularly bad. i don't think himself necessarily have any idea of what you wanted from iran other than to make a deal that obama didn't. but moving forward from that

though, human rights is another issue that people have a huge problem with in iran and rightfully so. but i getanother question which is with this retelling of history . how do you think it's changed the way americans and iranians think about the possibilities for our future. >> especially now i think that's a valid question that a new administration has promised to change its approach to iran in terms of the issues it has with iran. >> i'm hoping that people will take away from this book awareness of the fact that it doesn't need to be this way. most of the history it hasn't been . i maybe i'm nacve, i've been accused of being nacve and idealistic. that's a position on more than happy to accept because i do believe that the fundamental logic of 200, 300 years everything changes. iranians and americans can

easily see each other in a sort of ideological way and i don't think tomorrow they can suddenly wake up and find the us and iran have become friends and allies, that's not going to happen but i do believe that the possibility is there, the politics is complex and the other allies in the region will sort of have a lot to say about this but i suppose embedded in the question isalso curiosity about where we are right now with the buying and ministration . that's one of the first questions i hear as well is about how everything's going it's very, it's difficult stuff becauseobviously the bad news is that iran has an election coming up in june . and the us and iranian president is kind of limited to 2 four-year terms like the american president . probably were going to have to hear more hardline anti-american administrations just logically.

after the pullout from the jcp okay, nobody's going to win an election in around right now anyone a better relations with the united states. these elements are successfully making the arguments that you cannot trust the united states. president rabbani and his reform minded foreign minister have been humiliated by this. if their signature foreign-policy achievement is the jcp okay and since the us pullout become easy for their opponents to say you guys were suckers and you can never trust americans. so there's a high likelihood that for that same reason, this is also in some ways good news. the iranians will be key to try to resurrect the jcp okay if they can and their legacy is on the line but they also want to take the argument away from the hardliners when it comes to election time. they'll be able say that was probably just an aberration or whatever.

what time is limited. the presidential campaign in iran is going to kick off soon like in march, april and we're already dealing with these maneuvers and on the other side of the biden administration, a lot of the people worked personally on the jcpoa and have an investmentin the idea that they can resurrect it . people in many cases have worked together and know the details of the nuclear issue very well but of course, joe biden also has a lot of other things on his plate. >> in the case of the nuclear negotiators in the biden team, they have each other's numbers which ishelpful . and emails and everything else. i think it is, i can go to another question because i don't want to get through, we don't havea lot of time . former peace corps volunteer in iran says there were many volunteer organizations involved in these and i do remember that. did your research uncover any

interesting facts about them and about their work in iran? >> i didn't look closely at the peace corps history in iran although i attributed an essay to a new volume coming up and i'm embarrassingly forgetting the name of the scholar but there's an article, i hope i'm not getting her name wrong and she's writing an article about the peacecorps in iran so i look forward to that . it's not an area where on the work closely but the people at open to like jim good and others, these are people who studied iran and us relationships but started out with peace corps volunteers so there's an active community of alumniof the us peace corps in the us . so i'll leave it at that as well. >> going back to the nuclear deal and the idea of trust and again this goes back to the history of the us and iran, i think the trust is not just on this nuclear deal

that got abandoned by the trump administration and subsequently opposing the sanctions which is has damaged the economy and damaged theeconomy for ordinary iranians, not just for the government . but the trust also goes all theway back to 53. we trust in america to not interfere in our democratic processes . we trusted that they would be on our side. in human rights issues and not training the cia or mossad coming into train us to be in torture techniques and all that, we was lost trust there. we didn't trust them after the revolution because they with saddam hussein and engaged in his work on chemical weapons. and nobody ever felt iran in that war which has been imposed on iran. so this distrusting goes on and on from 1953 and as you pointout now , particularly

bad because now iranian currency has been devalued. there are shortages of medicine in iran or in are in the middle of the coronavirus and are dying. so this must issue has become a very very important point of, not for the illness is necessarily only in america becauseamerica also trust iran . iran is something america views as not being trustworthy but go back to the question of that i'm going to look at one couple more before we sign off. one question says the iranian people may have had mostly friendly, have been mostly friendly towards the us but i would assume that authoritarian regimes can't survive without at least some support. forthe supporters of this particular 42-year-old regime in iran . >> and did you get into that and all that a bit in the

epilogue of the book and i know this is a very sort of a minefield. it's a question of the idea of support of the iranian republic was unfortunately this is a product of what i think is our fairly broken discourse about iran and the united states which is if you even suggest that the islamic republic has any support whatsoever people will just lose their mind. and i already can feel my twitter probably blowing up with people yelling at me that i open my mouth on the subject but i want to touch on there are many mediterranean were deeply dissatisfied with the islamic people. and not all of them, many you go to iran you will hear a lotof dissatisfaction . especially now. and i happen to believe that most of that is the kind of bread andbutter variety . just livelihood and what are we doing now. we're having trouble making ends meet and so on and of course these sanctions have only become worse. in my experience what i've gone to iran with these kind

of taxicab conversations with various friends and family or whatever, anyone would come. it's a real range. like there is anywhere else but you don't hear a huge , this is where i have the biggest misconceptions that people have in the us, you don't hear a huge constituency of people who say, who want to do away with the entire system and want to have another revolution . you are opposed to the whole idea of islamic republic and what it brings. i'll get such brief for this already but want to bring plurality and all the rest, you don't hear that in huge numbers. you don't, but you do hear a lot of dissatisfaction about the price of fish, the price ofbread . you hear a range of opinions and you do here sometimes people who are supportive and i think that is the constituency that we can not

hear about very often and western media coverage. i explained that,i think there's a mix of things and obviously there is an ever present regime apparatus . there's a police date of sorts and it's not like people can kind of go out and protest against the regime and hundreds of thousand although they have on occasion. but is not the only explanation. i'm sorry, people may not like this answer if that were the only explanation that it wassimply repression of keeping the regime in power it wouldn't have remained in power . that's somethingthat is maybe difficult for many people to accept . some of them may not like it and it may not make them happy but it's a reality and as a historian we have to understand when you have a group of people who have remained, i don't have any special affection for the islamic republic but when you have people who remain in power for 40 years despite having the largest superpower

against them, trying to undermine them atevery turn , no real allies on the world stage, there's a lot of opposition and somehow they've managed to survive it's not just because they are these kind of crazy fanatical people. does the islamic republic have any ideological sense to it? absolutely but they are also smart, savvy political operators who know how to give the republic just enough to keep themselves in power. >> there's also people who benefit from the continuation of the islamic republic. people who know about the ircc and the sheer number of the ircc militia and there are people who benefit from it. there are people who are

socially conservative, whoare religiously conservative , who believe in the ayatollah and the clerics and what they say and who i have no idea if the majority or minority, how many people it is but they do exist. >> there are public people religiously conservative who don't believe in the republic . you will meet people in iran who will be diehard supporters, deep really religious, deeply conservative, even anti-american, anti-western in a lot of ways but you start talking to them they see these people have defiled religion after have no place in that religion is such a special thing that you don't want to enter into the political arena . iran has a rich and complex political history like any other country. >> even some of the supporters of the islamic republic and islamic republic , i had a conversation with

the cleric in the religious center is iran and he was a cleric and he said he disagreed. he obviously believed in the islamic republic not obviously but he disagreed with making religion compulsory. he said when he said they, he meant the government. they were the regimes are going to make people move away from islam. like by forcing them, by renting it down their throats and i for that many times and i think that's among certain people in iran that's a common refrain even as you point out among religious figures. >> it as real evidence that's exactly what's happened. >> one more question which is very relevant to today. someone asks what would be a quick confidence building measure,can you comment on the selection of robert malley as biden's iran envoy ? >> and confidence building i assume from the us side is what this person is asking you.

>> as a historian i'm not very comfortable with these kinds of policy questions and obviously a much more comfortable in the part that i am even in the present much less in the future so i don't want to be getting descriptive advicefor the biden administration, there are much smarter people who can do that . look for sanctions, the biggest thing for iran is there desperately like yesterday needs an sanctions relief so anything that moves in that direction even if it's not repealing all the sanctions, but starting some assurances i think could go a long way and here's what i would say. i'm a historian and i go back to the 1850s and that's the first disagreement the two countries ever had . i know it seems crazy because other people since the 1850s is not like suddenly we can go back but in some ways what if we can offer something

like that or reminded ourselves that the first disagreement with these two countries ever hack, the disagreement in which iran is trying to get us protection against russia and britain and the us is saying we don't want to get involved. today, iran is facing this kind of unexpected your path of convenience between israel and some of the gulf arab states and saudi arabia. they had before who's implicit intention is to isolate iran. in many ways very similar to what we were facing and when they were facing the russian and britain british pressure in the 1850s they turned to the us to protect them, what would happen if iran pull a rabbit out of tomorrow and could actually say that is great new budding friendship with the united states and ways that in the face of the israelis and saudi's, that's one thing no one would expect from iran to the islamic republic is so geared towards anti-americanism. but what if they do that, conversely what if the us pulled a rabbit out of attack and said something really

genuinely abandoned all these ideas about regime change and interference in iranian affairs and really respected the islamic republic and said we're going to deal with iran as it is as we find it rather than as we would like it to be and were not going to interfere because the greatest rhetorical weapon that the islamic republic has in its rhetoric is they accused theus of the imperialistic and arrogant and the us makes it very easy for iran what if they took away that weapon ? i'm not nacve in saying either of these things is going to happen what if both countries for a moment try to remember and channel the first disagreement they ever had and maybe absorb something of its spirit. as they approach the conversations with each other? it's only been 170 years and as a historian at not very long time so i feel like that's maybe my advice for historians. it's notgoing to be important i know . >> i think learning from history is always good or at least looking back at history and trying to see what worked and what didn't work is always going to be good.

>> i want to say if anyone wants to i'm usually found on instagram and twitter if you want to follow up . i know we've run out of time. >> i apologize for not getting to more questions. it seems like we ran out of time very quickly as usual. i have to thank you john and this for this fascinating conversation and for a wonderful book but i really really truly enjoyed reading . it's i had to use clichc but it is a page turner. if you have any interest in iranian-american relations. and it's told this wonderful storytelling way. you don'thave to be an academic to read this . kids can read this. i also want to thank the center for history and marcia as well and the brooklyn library and with that, go buy this book. thank you again. >> i really appreciate the conversation and thank you again to everyone for coming.

>> thank you all for joining us. >> you are watching tv on c-span2 every weekend with the latest nonfiction books and authors, book tv created by america's cable television companies today brought to you by these television companies providebook tv to viewers as a public service . >> the american enterprise institute in washington dc posted a virtual event with former second lady lynn cheney to discuss four of the first five presidents who all hailed from virginia area here she weighs in on the debate over the removal of statues for america's founders who owned slaves. >> i'm not opposed to taking down the confederatesoldiers and confederate leaders . they were traitors to the union. and i think that if you take those statues down is fine. but i do, i mean, i'm

appalled actually when statues of washington fall or when the dc government had the commission that suggested if we don't start explaining the washington monument and jefferson memorial better, then maybe they should be moved to some other place. they can't do this because those statues and those monuments are on private land but i'm appalled at this and the hope for it is usually they were slaveholders. well, they knew the slaveholding was wrong. they jefferson i think called a stain on virginia. and others have been spoke of it as a mortal sinand jefferson called it the sin against god . though they were aware of the dilemma in which they lived. the contradiction in which they existed. but they found themselves unable to circumstances were

not right that they could achieve the full emancipation that justice demand. that didn't stop them, once they understood what a unique place they were in, what a unique time they were in. they were all educated in the enlightenment and the scottish enlightenment. the idea of freedom and liberty and justice and equality were central to that . to the scottish and like and they were all washington educated himself but the other three went to find schools and learn this they were perfectly ready to start a new nation based on very high principles. and that's what they did. and you know, youwrite that it is a contradiction . but i sure am glad they did.

>> to watch the rest of this program visit our website. use the search box and look for lynn cheney or the title of her book the virginia dynasty . >> here are some programs to look out for this weekend on book tv. tonight on our weekly author interview program, the american enterprise institute john fortier provides his guide to understanding the electoral college area and historian janice amira profiles the blackwell sisters the first women to receive medical degrees in the united states really fine. information online at booktv.org. >> the association of scholars president peter woods, 1620, a critical response to the project and i trust everyone can see it here, you should all go out and buy this at amazonor some other provider immediately . the book came out in november and it's been top