Understanding the limits of power

  • The main thread of this review article is to identify the reasons of how to account for the trajectory of American power in the region. Leaving behind the vast amount of highly politicised and hastily compiled volumes of recent years (notwithstanding valuable exceptions), the monographs composed by Lawrence Freedman, Trita Parsi and Oliver Roy attempt to subtly disentangle the intricacies of US involvement in the region from highly distinct perspectives. One caveat for International Relations theorists is that none of the aforementioned authors intends to provide theoretical frameworks for his examination. However, since IR theory has damagingly neglected history in the last decades, the works under review here, at least in part, compensate for this disciplinary and intellectual failure. In conclusion, Freedman’s in-depth approach as a diplomatic historian, with its under-lying reference to the various traditions in US foreign policy thinking, is most illuminating, while Parsi’s contestable account focuses too narrowly on theThe main thread of this review article is to identify the reasons of how to account for the trajectory of American power in the region. Leaving behind the vast amount of highly politicised and hastily compiled volumes of recent years (notwithstanding valuable exceptions), the monographs composed by Lawrence Freedman, Trita Parsi and Oliver Roy attempt to subtly disentangle the intricacies of US involvement in the region from highly distinct perspectives. One caveat for International Relations theorists is that none of the aforementioned authors intends to provide theoretical frameworks for his examination. However, since IR theory has damagingly neglected history in the last decades, the works under review here, at least in part, compensate for this disciplinary and intellectual failure. In conclusion, Freedman’s in-depth approach as a diplomatic historian, with its under-lying reference to the various traditions in US foreign policy thinking, is most illuminating, while Parsi’s contestable account focuses too narrowly on the Iran-Israel relationship. Roy’s explications fail to show how and why the ‘ideological’ element in US foreign policy came to carry exceedingly more weight after 2001 than it did in the 1990s.show moreshow less

Download full text files

  • SHA 1:6f6aab1e539f42b54ac88717c229e8b644a7af22

Export metadata

Additional Services

Share in Twitter Search Google Scholar Statistics
Metadaten
Author:Maximilian TerhalleORCiDGND
URN:urn:nbn:de:kobv:517-opus4-413722
DOI:https://doi.org/10.25932/publishup-41372
ISSN:1867-5808
Parent Title (English):Postprints der Universität Potsdam : Wirtschafts- und Sozialwissenschaftliche Reihe
Subtitle (English):America’s Middle East experience
Series (Serial Number):Postprints der Universität Potsdam : Wirtschafts- und Sozialwissenschaftliche Reihe (102)
Document Type:Postprint
Language:English
Date of first Publication:2019/02/05
Year of Completion:2011
Publishing Institution:Universität Potsdam
Release Date:2019/02/05
Issue:102
Pagenumber:10
First Page:631
Last Page:640
Source:Review of International Studies, 37 (2011) 2, pp. 631–640 DOI 10.1017/S026021051000029X
Organizational units:Wirtschafts- und Sozialwissenschaftliche Fakultät
Dewey Decimal Classification:3 Sozialwissenschaften / 32 Politikwissenschaft / 320 Politikwissenschaft
Peer Review:Referiert
Publication Way:Open Access
Grantor:Cambridge University Press (CUP)
Licence (German):License LogoKeine Nutzungslizenz vergeben - es gilt das deutsche Urheberrecht
Notes extern:Bibliographieeintrag der Originalveröffentlichung/Quelle