Ali Ansari's historical background and social-psychoanalysis is beyond reproach. But the book has nothing to do with "confronting" Iran. Not even with "understanding" Iran!!
The take-away is that Iran has historical grievances and a very fragile national pride that cannot get over these grievances, and the author recommends that the West, and the rest of the world for that matter, should "baby-cuddle" this Iranian wounded psyche.
Iranian murders in Buenos Aires and Beirut, Paris and Berlin, should be assessed as temper tantrums rather than terrorist attacks.
Iranian aggression against its weaker neighbors should be understood as "logical" imperial behavior, that the West should identify with, rather than "confront" on the basis of: two wrongs don't make right.
This Scottish-Iranian author opines that any mistakes Iran does are justified by the historical backdrop, even if mythical. This is a smug opinion that absolves Iran from wrong doing, present or future, since the past cannot, now, be changed. I think this is far more Iranian, than it is Scottish.
While I applaud the patriotic spirit of many "Westernized" Iranian writers, Like Ali Ansari here, and Vali Nasr; I cannot avoid the fact that this spirit ends up clouding their critical analysis, and perverts their thinking into propaganda for the Islamic Republic.