TEHRAN — Iranian political figures and citizens have responded with skepticism and disdain to a recent speech by US Secretary of State Marco Rubio, which drew parallels between current geopolitical tensions and ancient Greco-Persian conflicts. The remarks were delivered against the backdrop of the Acropolis in Athens, where Rubio positioned the United States as the modern heir to Western civilization stretching from ancient Greece to Rome.
Rubio argued that contemporary Western nations have suffered a decline in industrial and military strength, urging a return to assertive power. He referenced the Persian sack of Athens in 480 BC under King Xerxes I, describing how Persian forces destroyed temples and the Acropolis before recounting the city’s eventual resurgence under Pericles. The US secretary of state contrasted this ancient history with his characterization of Iran’s current leadership, labeling the post-1979 clerical government a “death cult” driven by fanaticism and the instrumentalization of martyrdom.
The rhetoric has drawn sharp rebukes from Tehran. Iranian security chief Mohsen Rezaei and Parliament Speaker Mohammad Bagher Ghalibaf both invoked the historical capture of Roman Emperor Valerian by Persian King Shapur I in 260 AD. “Anyone who brings history into this must be prepared for its repetition,” Rezaei stated, signaling that historical grievances could resurface in the ongoing conflict.
The Iranian Ministry of Foreign Affairs accused Rubio of distorting Greek, Roman, Christian, and modern history to legitimize military escalation. Foreign Ministry spokesman Esmaeil Baghaei criticized the US approach as coercive, stating, “It appears that the US has concluded it is better to justify its policy of coercion and force to the world under the beautiful neon lights of ‘philosophy of history’, instead of naked bullying that uses the language of cowboys.” Baghaei described Rubio’s references as “anachronism,” arguing they resurrected buried events to serve contemporary political aims.
The dispute occurs against the backdrop of a war that began on February 28 following joint US-Israeli strikes on Iran. Although direct combat has eased since a now-defunct memorandum of understanding was agreed upon in June, the US maintains a naval blockade, and shipping through the Strait of Hormuz remains disrupted. Iranian Culture Minister Reza Salehi-Amiri urged Western leaders to address Iran with respect, noting, “It is not an enemy created in a political speech but a living civilisation, a great nation and a lasting reality in world history.”
Historians in Iran also pushed back on Rubio’s narrative. Touraj Daryaei pointed out that while the Persian attack on Athens was accurate, Rubio omitted the context of retaliation. In 498 BC, Athenian forces had burned Sardis, a provincial capital of the Persian Empire in western Anatolia, a detail Daryaei suggested holds relevance for Iranians who view the recent US and Israeli actions as unprovoked.
Public reaction in Tehran was similarly negative. Shima, a 26-year-old resident, told Al Jazeera that Rubio’s invocation of conflicts from 2,500 years ago was an opportunistic attempt to garner support for the war. “They want to continue the war, and they will say whatever they think will work in the moment,” she said.
Iranian state media seized on the speech, with the hardline newspaper Vatan-e Emrouz publishing an image of Rubio in Roman military attire with the headline “Ancient war,” accusing him of fabricating historical-ideological justification for the conflict. Some diaspora Iranians and opponents of the Islamic Republic clarified that Rubio’s animosity was directed at the regime rather than the Iranian people or their ancient heritage.
Vali Nasr, a professor at Johns Hopkins University’s School of Advanced International Studies, suggested the speech was designed to unite the US and Europe by defining Iran as a common civilizational enemy, replacing the previous focus on Islam. He noted that the timing coincided with President Donald Trump’s deal to purchase Russian diesel fuel, potentially signaling that Washington views Iran, rather than Russia, as the primary adversary. Nasr concluded that the rhetoric underscores a US perception that sees no distinction between the Iranian people and the Islamic Republic.
If only politicians remembered that empires rise and fall. This cold war rhetoric feels dangerously naive about the region.
As an Iranian, it feels like my country’s entire existence is being flattened into a single ancient grievance. We are more than Xerxes.
The irony of Athens hosting a speech about Persian aggression is truly staggering. What a bizarre diplomatic choice.
History is rarely this bluntly weaponized. Rubio seems to think citing 480 BC justifies modern sanctions.