Review of Güngörürler’s Selim <i>The Ottoman Empire and Safavid Iran, 1639–1682: Diplomacy and Borderlands in the Early Modern Middle East</i> (Edinburgh University Press, 2024)

Drawing on a wide range of literary and archival sources, Selim Gngrrler's The Ottoman Empire and Safavid Iran, 1639-1682: Diplomacy and Borderlands in the Early Modern Middle East offers a detailed reconstruction of Ottoman-Safavid diplomacy and interstate relations during the four decades following the Peace of Zuhab.Challenging the prevailing historiographical assumption that this period was marked by calm and diplomatic inactivity, Gngrrler demonstrates that it was not a time devoid of interaction or tension, but rather one of sustained engagement.He argues that the two empires remained deeply involved in a highly structured courtly diplomacy, encompassing the exchange of missions and letters as well as the careful management of recurring border crises that tested the peace.The book contends that this diplomacy was substantive rather than merely ceremonial, and that both empires actively pursued strategic advantage in the borderlands, all while preserving the formal appearance of friendship and reaffirming an interstate hierarchy predicated on Ottoman primacy.The book comprises four chapters.Chapter 1 offers an overview of the structural dynamics and foundational principles that governed Ottoman-Safavid dtente between 1639 and 1682.A central theme emphasized throughout this section-and indeed the book as a whole-is the principle of Ottoman hierarchical primacy, which underpinned bilateral relations.In this system, the Ottoman dynasty was accorded supreme imperial status, while the Safavid counterpart was recognized as holding a kingly or otherwise subordinate rank.This disparity shaped every aspect of diplomatic practice, from the titles and tone employed in official correspondence to the rank of envoys and functionaries involved in exchanged missions.The Safavids' acceptance of their junior status was a direct reflection of the power asymmetry between the two empires.As the weaker party, the Safavids were largely committed to preserving peace, often at considerable cost.For the Ottomans, by contrast, relations with the Safavids were secondary to their European engagements and were conducted from a position of relative strength.The chapter also highlights the frontier not as a static boundary but as a dynamic zone of interaction, where local actors played crucial roles in sustaining multifaceted engagements between Constantinople and Isfahan during peacetime.Simultaneously, Ottoman-Safavid diplomacy reveals the deep cultural entanglements between the two courts.Officials on both sides were wellversed in both Persian and Ottoman Turkish across conversational and literary registers