The book under review analyzes if intercultural dialogue can be politically relevant as a specific tool of foreign cultural policy. The book displays a rich and systematic documentation and analysis of material regarding organizations and individuals involved in the intercultural dialogue in Iran and Germany. Analyzing soft power in direct comparison of Iran and Germany and their mutual goals towards each other fills an important gap. Iran is often analyzed in terms of its political goals but not its cultural goals. The book is therefore not only valuable as a thorough examination of Iran’s intercultural dialogue but is also insightful for organizations of other countries involved in intercultural dialogue as the author gained access to rich materials and conducted various interviews. The book is structured in seven chapters, plus appendices naming the organizations and activities concerned with intercultural dialogue in Iran and Germany, also in addition to a list of the interviewees. Regarding methodology, the reader has to rely on a rather short explanation. This chapter is only included in the author’s full dissertation.

The first chapter introduces the reader to the main research question: “What role has intercultural dialogue played with regard to the foreign cultural policy of Iran and Germany towards each other, and why?” (p. 18). The timeframe of the analysis is from 1998 to 2013, i.e. during the presidencies of Khatami and Ahmadinejad. Intercultural dialogue is defined in terms of cultural activities (as opposed to economic, military, etc.) that are supported by the respective states and involves mutual communication of Iranian and German organizations or individuals (p. 22). Intercultural dialogue is part of foreign cultural policy which itself is a part of foreign policy. As a political tool, intercultural dialogue has been hoped to be involved in security and peace solutions.

The second chapter gives an overview of the German–Iranian relationship. Both nations have a long history of mutual relationship although it has not been developed along a certain strategy (p. 36). Both nations found a way to maintain cultural activities and certain forms of dialogue even under political tensions. Worth mentioning is the peculiarity of the cases. Iran changing between a pre-Islamic and an Islamic image, and Germany developing from a nationalist to a culturally open mindset with a strong civil society.

Chapter 3 describes the structure of foreign cultural policy in Germany and Iran. Germany has an integrated framework of foreign cultural policy in contrast to a fragmented structure in Iran. After the cultural propaganda and imperialism in World War II, Germany shaped a policy that should reflect an open anti-nationalist and friendly self-image towards other nations. Germany’s foreign cultural policy is formed by a single authority. And there are guideline documents formulating the overarching targets, European integration and Germany’s reputation in the world. After 9/11 the dialogue between Europe and Islam became an important ingredient for a peacekeeping function of foreign cultural policy. Iran suffers from an ambiguous view of what its culture represents. Since the Revolution, Iran has presented itself as Islamic. However, events such as the Iran–Iraq war as well as different world views of the different presidents and finally the distance between state and society make a clear-cut view of Iranian culture difficult. The political system in Iran lies at the core of this fragmentation. The state of Iran itself is not unified when it comes to its interest, with a religious and a democratically legitimated sector. Both sectors define divergent goals; and inside the democratic sector, two successive presidents (Khatami and Ahmadinejad) hold different visions of their state. In the well-ordered German cultural foreign policy, actors are clear about Germany’s goals. Iran lacks a coordinated structure for its activities.

Chapter 4 describes in detail the actors and discourses of intercultural dialogue in Iran and Germany. Each actor and discourse is characterized in a typology. The author here relies on rich source material of documents and personal interviews. Iran has mainly two relevant discourses here: interfaith dialogue and dialogue among civilizations. Organizations involved in interfaith dialogue struggled “under Conditions of fragmented Coordination and Authority” (p. 86). They suffered from severe structural problems: insufficient financial budgets, changing directors with different priorities and the lack of an overarching plan, and no specific agreement between Iran and Germany. The author emphasized the mixed structure and the unclear and mutually hindering structure of the religious and democratic sectors in Iran (p. 80) as reasons for this. This also makes it difficult for foreign partners to keep an overview of who is responsible. Dialogue among civilizations had “Aspiring aims” (p.96) but was too much bound to the position of Khatami and also suffered from a lack of long-term goals and an inadequate budget. Further activities were described as “ineffective attempts,” which are diverse but irregular, short and incoherent (p. 105). The fragmented responsibilities inside Iran on the domestic level, i.e. religious vs democratic sector, are a huge obstacle to intercultural dialogue. It is not the relation to the other country in the first place but Iran’s inner struggle which frames the intercultural possibilities. In Germany, the European-Islamic cultural dialogue is one of the main discourses with Muslims and Islamic countries since 9/11. The aims of the dialogue are mutual understanding between the West and Islam, the contribution of German values, access to Muslim countries, and reduction of stereotypes about Muslims. The German intercultural dialogue is evaluated as well organized and integrated under the main goals of the German foreign cultural policy. Although it is evaluated as much better in comparison to Iran’s policy, the German dialogue deals with typical problems of intercultural dialogue. If there are political tensions regarding the other nation, then foreign cultural policy is also restricted. Further, even when estimating the academic exchange as one of the primary activities, it is questionable how this would lead to a better mutual understanding of normal people. However, “keeping contact” is evaluated as successful, especially in the academic field leading to exchange of knowledge and opinions.

Chapter 5 presents the results of the intercultural dialogue in Iran and Germany. Iran’s foreign cultural policy goals are vague and ambiguous. Furthermore, the goals are mainly those of religious hardliners. Cultural goals lean toward the religious sector, with the democratic sector having little to say. The attitude of Iran towards non-religious or non-Islamic nations is rather negative, rendering a dialogue difficult. In Germany, goals of the foreign policy and the foreign cultural policy and the intercultural dialogue fit together well. Activities in intercultural dialogue were fulfilled, e.g. reducing stereotypes, and achieving mutual understanding and access to Muslim societies. However, “[i]ts role in Iranian and German foreign cultural policies, nevertheless, was neither vital, critical, nor decisive. It did not bring a significant change to the policies of both countries” (p. 174). Germany’s well-organized dialogue could not lead to a crucial change but played only a supplemental role.

Chapter 6 discusses the reasons for the asymmetric relationship, i.e. Germany with an active and Iran with a passive role in their mutual intercultural dialogue. The author finds three explanations. First, Germany’s foreign cultural policy is constructed “towards a single plan and purpose” and integrated in a “single sector” (p. 181). Iran’s foreign cultural policy depends on a bifurcated system. The religious and the democratically legitimated sectors often paralyze each other. A second reason is the organizational efficiency. Germany has several advantages here: a lot of expertise for diverse fields, a longstanding tradition and experience of projects and organizations, a better financial support system, which is transparent and distributed via fair competition. Further, Iran does not use the networking resources. Iran’s dialogue depends here on the engagement of individual persons whereas German organizations actively care about networking. The third reason is the political tension in each country. Iran’s foreign cultural policy is affected by the internal conflicts of Iran. Even Khatami as a supporter of intercultural dialogue could not implement guidelines for it. Ahmadinejad judges other topics to be relevant: e.g. nuclear energy. In the end Iran’s politics and its intercultural dialogue culminate into “contradictions, conflicts and confrontations” (p. 192). But Germany was also affected by political tensions. As the existence of Israel is one the pillars of Germany’s politics, Ahmadinejad’s rhetoric affected the cultural relations. Intercultural dialogue is then a “hostage of politics” (p.194) against the philosophy of keeping the European–Islamic dialogue running. However, in the end there were enough individual German actors who at least kept “the door open” (p. 195). This policy puts Germany in a beneficial position, e.g. compared to the USA, which has no firsthand information on Iran. And Iran benefits as it still has a partner in the western world.

Chapter 7 offers a conclusion and summarizes the most important features of the mutual intercultural dialogue of Iran and Germany. Important here is that intercultural dialogue is a political tool and not a means to an end. It has ambitious goals. In Iran’s isolation Khatami’s longing for a dialogue was necessary, not only for cultural but also economic reasons. After 9/11, Germany, as a western country with a relatively high population of Muslims, needs to keep the dialogue open with the Islamic world. Both countries had to face internal hindrances. Religious hardliners in Iran resist any opening toward the western world; in Germany dialogue with Iran is sometimes criticized as talking to anti-Semites. The author concludes that intercultural dialogue cannot avoid political conflicts or strengthen security. But at least it can keep “some doors open,” and to “expect more would have been unrealistic” (p. 201). In the end Iran could not use its full potential in the Iranian–German dialogue. However, at least it was possible to fulfill a passive role. Although politics have not changed, dialogue ensures contact in the areas of education, science and the arts.

The author analyzes well the internal political disputes in Iran, and on the other side the good internal organization in Germany, which is important as a foundation for dialogue. It is well-known that political tensions between the countries influence the dialogue. But in this book, it further becomes apparent that the state first has to have a clear self-image and an appropriate organizational structure before it is able to start, and benefit from, intercultural dialogue. The author does not aim to offer a causal explanation of the goals of intercultural dialogue. However, she admits that these goals are hardly measurable. This points to the need for further research that analyzes in-depth specific goals and does so using different methods. As the author opens the field of intercultural dialogue in Iran it is sound to choose ‘grounded theory’ as she might be the first to gather this amount of material intercultural dialogue in Iran. Furthermore, as she points out, Iran is not a typical Muslim case, and nor is Germany a typical western case. Her work can be an important ingredient in a complete picture of the European and Islamic dialogue. When this work is completed, the politics of intercultural dialogue will be able to be analyzed under a specific theoretical framework. To analyze Iran’s intercultural dialogue, the author had to overcome the lack of transparency of the organizations involved. As often not even the actors of intercultural dialogue have a clear understanding of the activities, the richness of material will be a good source for Iranian studies scholars as well as for scholars of intercultural dialogue in general, especially for those that do not have comparable access to the main actors in the field.