TEHRAN – U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio’s October 7 speech in Athens invoked ancient Greece as the foundation of Western civilization, linking the Persian invasion under Xerxes in 480 BCE to a broader call for Western ambition, national sovereignty and renewed American power. Speaking at the historic Pnyx, Rubio also criticized Iran’s leadership, contrasting his portrayal of Western heroism with what he described as Iran’s “cult of death.” 

In this interview with the Tehran Times, Touraj Daryaee, historian of ancient Iran and editor of Encyclopaedia Iranica, challenges Rubio’s historical narrative and examines its political implications.

The following is the text of the interview:

 You noted that the Athenians helped burn Sardis, an important Achaemenid administrative center, in 489 BCE, before Xerxes invaded Greece in 480 BCE. How does this episode change our understanding of the history Rubio presents?
I think the entire premise of Secretary Rubio’s speech is false. This was not a battle between East and West, but rather a conflict between a world empire spanning three continents and a number of Greek city-states on the other side of the sea. From this perspective, the entire premise is wrong.
However, the Athenians and their allies did come in 489 BCE and burn the center of the Lydian satrapy of the Persian Empire. They set it on fire, looted it, and completely destroyed it, along with the Temple of Cybele. An empire obviously does not sit still in response to such an attack; it has to take revenge. The burning of the Acropolis in 480 BCE was, in effect, retaliation for what had happened nine years earlier.
 

Rubio cites figures such as Alexander the Great, Julius Caesar and Hernán Cortés as symbols of ambition and expanding power. What does this reveal about his definition of Western civilization?

Empires do what they do when they have the power to do so. Of course, the nature of empires differs. In antiquity, we see figures who sought to conquer the world, such as Alexander the Great and Julius Caesar.

I think Hernán Cortés was a different kind of figure. He belongs to the early modern period, when Europeans systematically set out to plunder the American, African and Asian continents, enrich themselves, enslave people to provide free labor, and build a capitalist economy. Their economy advanced beyond those of other continents partly because their natural resources had been taken.

This was different from the campaigns of Alexander or Julius Caesar, which sought to bring glory to Greece and Rome.

 Rubio delivered his speech at the Pnyx, where ancient Athenians gathered for their democratic assembly. Why did he choose this historic site, and what message does it convey?

Rubio smartly chose this location because the United States is engaged in a war with Iran. By going to Greece, he can effectively say, “Look, the Iranians were doing the same thing 2,500 years ago,” as if nothing has changed. He is trying to use history as an ideological tactic against Iran and, more broadly, against those on the other side of the current conflict.

It is a perfect spot if you want to invoke history, but I think he is doing so in an awkward way. In Iran, we do not go to Persepolis and say, “Alexander burned Persepolis, and that is why the Americans want to do the same.”

Rubio traces Western civilization from ancient Greece and Rome through Christianity and Europe to the United States. How accurate is this narrative, and what does it overlook about cultural exchanges between Persia, Greece and other ancient civilizations?

Mr. Rubio is really reaching for the stars here. The idea that the United States, represented by Mr. Rubio, whose family comes from Cuba, is an inheritor of Western civilization is not entirely accurate.

In fact, the idea that the West’s heritage is directly connected to Greece is a relatively recent phenomenon, dating back only two or three centuries. A bridge was constructed between antiquity and the modern age, bypassing much of what happened in the medieval world and overlooking important historical developments. This is, indeed, a fallacy.

Greece and Iran, by contrast, have had extensive contact with one another. They have borrowed from each other and share many similarities in their traditions, from antiquity to the present day. The United States and Germany, by comparison, are far removed from what Greece was and is.

He opens with the Achaemenid invasion of Athens and later criticizes Iran’s current leadership. Is this a deliberate link between ancient Persia and modern Iran, or would that interpretation go beyond his speech?

Yes, absolutely. Secretary Rubio is trying to link the past to the present, however false that connection may be. He is essentially saying, “Look at what is happening in our dealings with Iran, and what we are doing against Iran. This is what you had to face in 480 BCE.”

The fallacy here is that the United States has military bases throughout the Middle East. It is the United States and Israel that have bombed Iran. Iranians have not gone to Europe or the United States to wage war against Europeans or Americans.

You have highlighted Western interventions in the East over the past two centuries. Which historical events best illustrate the gap between the West’s image as a defender of freedom and its record of foreign intervention?

I think Rubio had several things in mind. One was to argue that the West should not apologize for its past. However, while talking about Greece as a great civilization, he did not address the experiences of people around the world over the past two or three centuries: people whose countries have been attacked, whose communities have been bombed and looted, and whose populations have been enslaved.

These actions helped build Western nations, particularly the United States, into what they are today. To ignore this history is quite dishonest.

The U.S. Secretary of State delivered this speech amid the war involving the United States and Iran. How should this context shape our reading of his references to ancient Persia and Western civilization?

The context is that the United States and the West have been in conflict with Iran, a power that acted as a superpower in Asia and the East, for what Rubio presents as an enduring historical struggle spanning millennia.

This is how he has framed the issue to make his argument more persuasive. He is doing so in Athens, beside the Acropolis, to drive home his point.

Rubio used ancient history to frame his vision of Western civilization and American power. Is he seeking to establish a distinct political doctrine of his own and lay the groundwork for a potential 2028 presidential campaign?

I think his speech generally went over well with a European audience concerned about immigration and changes in the demographic and religious composition of both Europe and the United States.

His central message is that Western civilization is a noble civilization that made the West a superpower. He presents it as an enduring, unchanging civilization with a history stretching back thousands of years.

What he does not describe is what this civilization has done to the rest of the world over the past two or three centuries in order to reach its current position.

No one is against Western civilization, but we should always remain mindful of the atrocities that have also been committed. You cannot vindicate yourself before history simply by standing beside an ancient monument such as the Acropolis to make your point.