A truly terrible work. Coughlin distorts basic facts, and writes in a highly incendiary way, as opposed to presenting basic facts and information in a calm, sober and scholarly fashion. As Azadeh Moaveni makes clear in her review for the New York Times: "Given the current attitudes in Washington about Iran, it seems Coughlin's book has arrived one administration too late." Coughlin is wildy out of step with the times and I hope book sales reflect people's weariness of fearmongering demagogues.
Coughlin repeats the Bush melodrama of Absolute Good vs. Absolute Evil, with little appreciation for the subtlety and nuance reality actually demands. I suggest you read Moaveni's review in the NYT entitled "Most Fundamentalist" for a more detailed picture and cataloguing of Coughlin's many rudimentary mistakes, omissions and outright lies.
I myself am writing a PhD on contemporary Iranian politics at one of the UK'S top universities so I do have an idea of what I'm talking about also. If you're interested in reading an insightful and illuminating primer on Iran read Ervand Abrahamian's
A History of Modern Iran,
Iran Between Two Revolutions (Princeton Studies on the Near East) or Michael Axworthy's
Iran: Empire of the Mind: A History from Zoroaster to the Present Day.
Couglin makes spurious and sensationalist claims on the most tendentious and thin of evidence. Please examine the footnotes. Not a single Persian language source and in a self-referential and somewhat Orwellian fashion he refers to his own newspaper articles in order to vindicate his flagrantly baseless assertions.
Couglin is an incredibly suspect figure. In a report published by the Campaign Against Sanctions and Military Intervention in Iran the sources of 44 articles written by Coughlin about Iran between 29/10/2005 and 10/10/2006 were examined and the following conclusions were made:
* Sources were unnamed or untraceable, often senior Western intelligence officials or senior Foreign Office officials.
* Articles were published at sensitive and delicate times where there had been relatively positive diplomatic moves towards Iran.
* Articles contained exclusive revelations about Iran combined with eye-catchingly controversial headlines.
* The story upon which the headline was based does not usually exceed one line or at the most one paragraph. The rest of the article focused on other, often unrelated, information.
It also should not be forgotten that Coughlin propagated the claim that the Iraqi army could access weapons of mass destruction within 45 minutes. This was the same claim, later discredited, used in the so-called "dodgy dossier" produced by the British intelligence services. Be wary of anything this man writes!