Images of Terror: What We Can and Can't Know About Terrorism; No End to War: Terrorism in the Twenty-First Century
The post-September 11 surge in publications offering the latest wisdom on terrorism has been a mixed bag, but here are two of the best. They are also quite different. Laqueur is a veteran terrorism-watcher. Here he does not reprise his earlier histories. Instead, he provides a hard analysis of the development of Islamic militancy, tracing it back to the Muslim Brotherhood of the 1970s and following it through radical campaigns in Egypt, the development of al Qaeda, and on to September 11. Although the output of these groups may be terrorism, Laqueur reminds us that they cannot be understood except in context, as a product of particular social and political forces and ideological constructions. He gives short shrift to those who see terrorism simply as a function of poverty and deprivation. Considering the widespread failure to appreciate the implications of developing turbulence in the Muslim world, Laqueur questions the competence not only of the government but also of the media and the academic community. Jenkins also addresses the stories behind acts of terrorism. He is most interested, however, in what happens to these stories as they enter public debate and are reconstructed through attempts to establish links that turn out to be tenuous at best -- Muhammad Atta and Iraq, Syria and Lockerbie -- and to stigmatize groups with the demonic "terrorist" label. Meanwhile, other questionable groups find their exploits celebrated. What meaning does the war against terror have for anti-Castro activists or Puerto Rican independentistas, or for those who kill in opposition to abortion? This is a brilliant, uncomfortable book, its impact heightened by clear, restrained writing and a stunning range of examples.
Related
In the Middle East, old-fashioned balance-of-power politics are back. To successfully play the game, the United States should pay close attention to the Arab-Israeli peace process, while keeping Iran off balance.
No area of the world had a greater impact on American politics, national security, and economic well-being than did the Middle East in 1979. With the fall of the Pahlavi regime in Iran early in the year, a profound change in the regional balance of power took place. In November, when the deposed Shah was admitted to the United States for medical treatment, militants seized the U.S. Embassy in Tehran and at the end of the year were still holding about 50 Americans hostage--with the support of Ayatollah Khomeini, the head of the new Iranian Islamic Republic. And in late December the Soviet Union used its own forces to replace one communist leader in Afghanistan with another more to its liking and subsequently sent over 50,000 troops to secure the new regime and to put down insurgents in the countryside.
Fifty-two Americans were taken hostage in Iran on November 4, 1979. Ten days later, in circumstances to be related, President Carter froze all assets of the government of Iran in the United States and under the control of U.S. banks, businesses and individuals outside the United States. This action, and related measures taken later, deprived Iran of the use of more than $12 billion in bank deposits, gold and other property. The President also cut off most export and other transactions between the United States and Iran and asked the U.N. Security Council to vote similar sanctions. U.N. action was blocked by a Soviet veto on January 13, 1980, but other nations gradually reduced their commerce with Iran. As the hostage crisis dragged on, these sanctions deprived Iran of critical supplies and spare parts and forced it into expensive deals with unreliable middlemen.

Sign-up for free weekly updates from ForeignAffairs.com.