History is usually written by the winners, but sometimes it’s the guy standing in the middle of a burning building with a notepad who tells the best story. Scott Anderson is that guy. Honestly, if you’ve been trying to make sense of why the Middle East looks the way it does in 2026, you’ve likely stumbled upon his massive new book, King of Kings. It’s not just another dry history text. It’s a 500-page autopsy of a disaster.
Most people hear "King of Kings" and think of something biblical or maybe a cheesy action movie. In this context, it refers to the Shah of Iran, Mohammad Reza Pahlavi. He called himself the Shahanshah. Literally, the King of Kings. Scott Anderson takes that title and turns it into a biting metaphor for how far a man can fall when he’s surrounded by yes-men and American diplomats who couldn't read the room if their lives depended on it.
Why King of Kings Scott Anderson is different from other history books
You’ve seen the textbooks. They focus on oil prices and Cold War maps. Anderson focuses on the "hubris" and "delusion" mentioned in his subtitle. He argues that the 1979 Iranian Revolution wasn't just a local spat; it was as world-shattering as the French or Russian Revolutions. Basically, it set the template for every religious-led populist uprising we’ve seen since.
The book kicks off with a party. Not just any party. A 1971 desert blowout at Persepolis that cost millions. While the Shah was drinking expensive French wine and trying to link his dynasty to Cyrus the Great, his people were starting to get really, really angry.
💡 You might also like: 39 Carl St and Kevin Lau: What Actually Happened at the Cole Valley Property
What most people get wrong about the Shah's fall
A lot of folks think the revolution happened overnight. It didn't. Anderson spends a lot of time showing how the U.S. government was basically "sleepwalking" into a meat grinder. The CIA station in Tehran was massive. We had thousands of military personnel there. Yet, we were blindsided.
How?
Kinda comes down to a classic office problem: being too insular. Anderson notes that the bigger an embassy gets, the dumber it tends to become. They stopped talking to regular Iranians. They only talked to the elite. By the time the streets were on fire, the "experts" were still sending memos saying everything was fine.
📖 Related: Effingham County Jail Bookings 72 Hours: What Really Happened
The complex figures behind the chaos
Scott Anderson doesn't do heroes and villains. He does humans. He paints the Shah as a "Shakespearean" figure—arrogant but weirdly weak. A "soft man masquerading as a hard one," as he puts it. Then you have Ayatollah Khomeini. He wasn't just a "fiery cleric." He was a master of media. He used audiotapes smuggled into the country to build a revolution while he was living in a quiet suburb in France.
There's also this guy Ebrahim Yazdi. He was an American-trained physician who acted as Khomeini's translator. Anderson points out that Yazdi would often "sanitize" what the Ayatollah was saying to make him sound like a moderate to Western journalists. If Khomeini muttered something about killing all his enemies, Yazdi just... wouldn't translate that part. It’s those kinds of details that make the book feel like a thriller.
King of Kings Scott Anderson: The 2026 Perspective
Why does this matter now? Because we’re still living in the wreckage. The book makes a strong case that the hatred of "economically-marginalized, religiously-fervent masses for a wealthy secular elite" started in Iran but has since spread everywhere. You see it in Europe, India, and even back home in the States.
👉 See also: Joseph Stalin Political Party: What Most People Get Wrong
The Iranian Revolution gave birth to the modern theocratic state. It turned a vital American ally into a permanent enemy. And according to Anderson, it could have been avoided if anyone in power had just looked out the window.
Key takeaways from the narrative
- Hubris is a killer. The Shah thought he was invulnerable because he had the world's fifth-largest army. He was wrong.
- Intelligence isn't just about spies. It's about empathy. If you don't understand what the people in the village are saying, your billion-dollar satellites don't matter.
- The "Gold Rush" economy. Iran was awash in oil money in the 70s, but that wealth didn't trickle down. It just made the inequality more obvious and painful.
Honestly, the most shocking part of the book is the sheer level of incompetence. We’re talking about high-level officials who didn't speak Farsi and hadn't talked to a non-government Iranian in years. They were essentially living in a bubble.
Actionable insights for history buffs and observers
If you’re looking to actually learn something from this besides "everything is a mess," here’s how to approach the topic:
- Read the Persepolis chapter first. It's the best summary of why the regime failed. It shows the disconnect between the "King of Kings" and the reality of the desert.
- Follow the money. Look at how oil prices in the 1970s created an economic bubble that eventually popped. It’s a lesson in "resource curses" that still applies to many countries today.
- Analyze the media strategy. Research how Khomeini used low-tech cassette tapes to bypass state censorship. It's the 1970s version of a viral social media campaign.
- Question the experts. When you hear modern pundits talk about "stability" in a region, remember Jimmy Carter's 1977 toast where he called Iran an "island of stability." Fourteen months later, the Shah was gone.
Scott Anderson has basically written a manual on how to lose an empire. It's a heavy read, but it’s necessary if you want to understand the deep roots of today's international crises. History doesn't always repeat, but as this book shows, it definitely rhymes with "stupidity."
To get the most out of this history, compare Anderson's account with contemporary reports from the 1970s. You’ll see the gap between what was happening and what was being reported. Use that skepticism next time you read a headline about global "stability." The walls might be closing in faster than the experts think.