In contemporary international relations, Iran is often constructed as a pariah state within Western discourse, with its actions judged against Western benchmarks, obscuring its internal rationality and reinforcing asymmetrical global power relations. Iran and the West: A Non-Western Approach to Foreign Policy by Andrew Thomas seeks to disrupt this hegemonic discourse by applying a non-Western approach. Thomas argues that the persistent failure of Western policy toward Iran—from missed diplomatic opportunities to ineffective sanctions—stems from a fundamental refusal to engage with Iranian political identity on its own terms.

The book’s central thesis is that “ignoring Iranian motivations of identity has routinely resulted in missed opportunities, growing tensions, and failed coercive policy” in the preface. Thomas situates his work within the burgeoning non-Western international relations discourse (NWIRD), a movement that challenges the Eurocentric “Westphalia” world that dominates the field.Footnote ¹ He contends that standard international relations concepts such as national interest are often applied to Iran as universal constants, failing to account for how these ideas are constructed within the specific historical and sociological experience of the Iranian state. Thomas employs a “snapshot” case study methodology, examining four pivotal encounters: the “Dialogue among Civilisations” vs. the “Axis of Evil” rhetoric (53); the Western representation of the 2009 presidential elections; the resistance economy in response to sanctions; and the transition from the Ahmadinejad to the Rouhani administration leading to the JCPOA. Through these, he demonstrates how Iran’s “foreign policy of resistance” (12) is not merely an ideological whim but a deeply rooted response to a history of colonial experience, modern nationalism, and perceived Western illegitimacy.

The originality of the book lies in its explicit attempt to apply NWIRD frameworks—often criticized in academic circles as being too abstract—to concrete, high-stakes policy issues. Although many scholars have critiqued Eurocentrism, Thomas’s contribution is significant because he attempts to bridge the gap between “local knowledge” and “definitive frameworks for analysing global processes.” (84) His analysis of the resistance economy (ch. 5) is particularly compelling. Thomas challenges the Western paradigm of state rationality, which assumes that economic pain via sanctions will inevitably lead to policy concessions. From a non-Western perspective, resistance to economic coercion is prioritized over traditional material interests because it is central to the state’s postrevolutionary identity and “ontological security.” (110) This perspective aligns with recent scholarship that views sanctions not just as economic tools, but as narrative instruments that reinforce a state’s defensive identity.

The primary strength of this book lies in its methodological bravery, providing a much-needed empirical template for applying non-Western international relations discourse to high-stakes security issues. By deconstructing Western rhetoric as an “epistemic barrier,” (13) Thomas effectively shifts the analytical burden, compelling readers to question the presumed rationality of Western diplomatic strategies. Furthermore, his application of ontological security is highly insightful. He persuasively argues that Iran’s resistance is not irrational but a vital effort to maintain a consistent sense of self and revolutionary identity under pressure. By centering indigenous voices like Moshirzadeh, Thomas respects Iranian agency and returns necessary complexity to the field.Footnote ² This balance of theoretical depth and scholarly inclusivity makes the book a landmark contribution to global international relations, offering a sophisticated alternative to reductive Western paradigms.

The organization of the book is effective, moving from historical context to specific contemporary cases. The writing style is sophisticated yet accessible, avoiding the dense jargon that often plagues postcolonial international relations theory. The relevance of the source material—ranging from presidential speeches at the UN to Twitter (now X) discourse during the 2009 Green Movement—is significant and serves the book’s larger aims of uncovering marginalized perspectives.

The coherence and clarity of the author’s presentation are among the book’s notable strengths. Thomas effectively illustrates how the axis of evil metaphor was not just colorful rhetoric but a “discursive attempt to delegitimise Iran’s position” (53), which actively undermined President Khatami’s genuine efforts at rapprochement. This analysis provides a necessary corrective to narratives that place the sole burden of diplomatic failure on Iranian “untrustworthiness.” Furthermore, Thomas engages deeply with native Iranian scholarship, moving beyond the Western secondary literature. His reference to scholars such as Homeria Moshirzadeh to explore a būmī (indigenous) version of international relations is a testament to the soundness of his scholarship. He also utilizes Teun van Dijk’s sociocognitive approach to discourse analysis to expose how Western media use “argumentative strategies” to entrench representations of Iran as a “criminal” requiring punishment (93). This methodological rigor ensures that his critique of Western epistemic violence is grounded in data rather than mere polemic.

Notwithstanding these substantive strengths, the work is occasionally tempered by certain thematic omissions that limit its empirical breadth. First, although Thomas justifies his snapshot approach to maintain analytical focus, the near-total exclusion of the Iran–Iraq War from the case studies is a missed opportunity. As scholarship on Iranian strategic culture has shown, the Sacred Defense was a foundational event, molding enduring perceptions of international betrayal and self-reliance.Footnote ³ Given that the contemporary resistance economy finds its sociological and psychological roots in this era, a deeper dive into the period would have further bolstered Thomas’s claims regarding the longevity of Iranian identity-driven policy. Additionally, the book’s engagement with Iran’s “Look to the East” policy remains somewhat thin. As Tehran increasingly pivots toward Moscow and Beijing to bypass Western-centric international forums, a truly non-Western approach must account for how Iran negotiates its identity within the emerging non-Western hierarchies.Footnote ⁴ Although Thomas focuses heavily on the Iran–West dyad, which is central to his thesis, the analysis leaves the reader curious about how this “foreign policy of resistance” translates into Iran’s burgeoning Eastern alliances.

Iran and the West: A Non-Western Approach to Foreign Policy successfully moves non-Western scholarship from the analytical periphery to the center of academic debate and effectively pushes the boundaries of Iranian studies and international relations theory. The book’s most enduring contribution is its epistemological intervention—a sharp reminder that Western discursive constructions of Iran are as much a part of the problem as geopolitical actions themselves. By deconstructing the systemic biases inherent in Western policy, Thomas offers a crucial corrective for policy analysts seeking to understand why coercive diplomacy so frequently yields unintended consequences. Thomas provides a master class in how to reconceptualize a state’s foreign policy by prioritizing its own strategic agency and historical identity, rather than forcing it through the reductive lens of a Western “rational actor” model. This volume is an indispensable addition to the library of any scholar committed to “worlding” of the field of international relations and moving toward a more inclusive, globalized discipline.