American Assassin
Chapter 36
by Flynn, VinceIn Chapter 36 of *American Assassin*, Mitch Rapp and his associate Hurley confront a banker named Dorfman, who has been aiding terrorists. To extract information, Rapp threatens Dorfman’s poodle with a knife, a tactic that proves effective as Dorfman relents and opens his safe. The safe contains incriminating evidence, including Nazi memorabilia, which confirms Dorfman’s morally bankrupt alliances. Despite Dorfman’s pleas that he is merely a businessman, Hurley executes him, emphasizing the gravity of his crimes. The chapter highlights Rapp’s moral conflict and the brutal efficiency of his methods, as well as Hurley’s ruthless pragmatism.
The narrative then shifts to Moscow, where SVR officer Ivanov reflects on a lucrative deal he secured the previous night. Ivanov draws parallels between the corrupt systems of post-Soviet Russia and *The Godfather*, reveling in his role as a power broker who cuts through bureaucratic inefficiency. He prides himself on delivering results for foreign investors, demanding a 10% stake in their ventures as payment. Ivanov justifies his actions as a necessary extension of his state security duties, though his motivations are clearly self-serving. The passage underscores the chaotic, opportunistic environment of post-Soviet capitalism.
Ivanov’s worldview is further explored as he contrasts the old Soviet system’s inefficiencies with the dynamic, albeit treacherous, new economy. He dismisses the old regime’s failures, where incompetence was rewarded, and embraces the current climate of unchecked ambition. However, he acknowledges the lingering corruption in courts, police, and security services, framing himself as a solution to these problems. Ivanov’s arrogance is palpable as he positions himself as superior to both the outdated Soviet bureaucracy and the inexperienced foreign investors he manipulates.
The chapter concludes with Ivanov’s assistant, Shvets, entering the office and tending to his hungover boss. Their interaction reveals Ivanov’s paranoia about appearing weak, especially in front of younger colleagues. Shvets mentions preparations for a trip to Beirut, hinting at future operations. Ivanov’s character is cemented as a cunning yet deeply flawed figure, embodying the moral ambiguity and ruthless ambition that define the world of espionage and power brokering in the novel.
FAQs
1. How does Rapp manipulate Dorfman into opening the safe, and what does this reveal about Dorfman’s priorities?
Answer:
Rapp psychologically manipulates Dorfman by threatening to harm his poodle with a knife, feigning intent to stab the dog’s eye. This tactic proves effective when Dorfman, initially resistant, breaks down and opens the safe to save his pet. The scene reveals Dorfman’s skewed priorities—he values his dog’s safety over his wife’s hypothetical peril or his own compliance with terrorists. Rapp’s muttered observation (“You care more about that damn dog than your wife”) underscores this moral inconsistency, highlighting how emotional attachments can override rational or ethical considerations, even in criminals.
2. Analyze the significance of Hurley’s discovery of Nazi memorabilia in Dorfman’s safe. How does this detail deepen the characterization of both Dorfman and the protagonists?
Answer:
The SS dagger and insignia serve as a revelatory character detail, painting Dorfman as not just a corrupt banker but a Nazi sympathizer—a historical archetype of evil. This discovery justifies Hurley and Rapp’s ruthless actions (e.g., executing Dorfman) by framing him as ideologically aligned with terrorism. For the protagonists, it reinforces their self-perception as moral actors: Hurley’s quip (“Nazi prick”) and Rapp’s sarcastic remark (“A poodle-loving Nazi who helps terrorists”) reveal their disdain for hypocrisy and ideological extremism. The Nazi connection also symbolizes systemic corruption, linking Dorfman’s personal depravity to broader themes of hidden evil in institutions.
3. Compare Ivanov’s worldview in Moscow with the actions of Rapp and Hurley in their mission. What parallels exist between their methods and justifications?
Answer:
Both Ivanov and the CIA operatives operate in morally gray zones but justify their actions through pragmatism. Ivanov views post-Soviet Russia as a lawless “Wild West” where power and corruption dominate, akin to The Godfather. He rationalizes extortion (“10% ownership is non-negotiable”) as necessary for efficiency, mirroring Rapp and Hurley’s extrajudicial tactics (torture, assassination) to combat terrorism. However, while Ivanov embraces corruption as a natural order (“lining the pockets of the powerful”), Rapp and Hurley see themselves as enforcing moral boundaries—punishing Dorfman for aiding terrorists. Both narratives explore how systems breed corruption, but the protagonists differ in their alignment with institutional versus personal power.
4. How does the chapter use contrasting imagery (e.g., the poodle vs. Nazi artifacts) to underscore thematic tensions?
Answer:
The juxtaposition of the vulnerable poodle and violent Nazi relics creates irony that underscores themes of hypocrisy and hidden brutality. Dorfman’s tender care for his dog contrasts sharply with his admiration for SS ideology, exposing the dissonance between his self-image and actions. Similarly, Rapp’s hesitation to harm the animal (“wasn’t sure he had the stomach for this”) contrasts with his cold efficiency in threatening Dorfman, revealing the complexity of morality in espionage. These contrasts amplify the chapter’s exploration of deception—both in characters (Dorfman’s dual identity) and systems (banking/terrorism, Soviet/capitalist corruption).
5. Evaluate Ivanov’s comparison of post-Soviet Russia to The Godfather. How does this analogy reflect his approach to power and corruption?
Answer:
Ivanov’s Godfather analogy frames power as transactional and hierarchical, where loyalty and fear dominate. He admires Coppola’s portrayal of “the essence of power” because it mirrors his own role—a fixer who bypasses “inefficient” systems (courts, police) through intimidation. His 10% stake demand echoes mafia extortion, while his disdain for “Jew lawyers” reflects a belief in brute force over legalism. However, the analogy also reveals his blind spots: like Vito Corleone, Ivanov sees himself as a necessary evil, yet his celebration of corruption (“money was to be made everywhere”) ignores its societal costs. This comparison critiques post-Soviet capitalism as a veneer for organized crime.
Quotes
1. ““Left eye or right eye? You choose.””
This chilling quote demonstrates Rapp’s ruthless interrogation tactics, using psychological torture (threatening the banker’s dog) to achieve his mission objectives. It reveals the moral ambiguity of counterterrorism work.
2. ““You care more about that damn dog than you do your wife… don’t you?””
This cutting remark highlights the twisted priorities Rapp observes in his target, while also subtly commenting on the dehumanizing nature of their work where even family bonds become secondary to operational goals.
3. ““The two systems were not, at the end of the day, all that different from each other. Both were corrupt to the core, and both systems served to line the pockets of the powerful.””
This insightful comparison between Soviet communism and post-Soviet capitalism reveals Ivanov’s cynical worldview and the book’s commentary on how power structures maintain corruption regardless of political systems.
4. ““It was The Godfather, the Wild West, and 1920s gangster America all rolled into one.””
This vivid metaphor captures the lawless environment of post-Soviet Russia that Ivanov navigates, where business, crime, and government intertwine in a dangerous power struggle.
5. ““Someone needed to keep track of all these foreign investors and make sure they weren’t stealing the Motherland’s natural resources. After all, he was far more deserving of the profits than some twenty-five-year-old business-school graduate.””
This quote perfectly encapsulates Ivanov’s self-justification for corruption, blending nationalist rhetoric with personal greed, showing how former Soviet officials rationalized their transition to capitalist oligarchy.