US Secretary of State Marco Rubio’s speech invoking ancient Persia and the Greco-Persian Wars has drawn criticism across Iran’s political spectrum as Washington’s war with Iran continues. Speaking with Athens’ Acropolis behind him, Rubio portrayed the United States as an heir to Western civilisation and argued that Western countries need renewed confidence, industrial strength and military power.
Rubio cited Persia’s destruction of Athens in 480 BC and the city’s later rebuilding as evidence that Western civilisation had survived an external enemy. He also condemned Iran’s leaders, who have held power since the 1979 Islamic Revolution, using language that portrayed them as extremist rulers who employ martyrdom for political ends.
Iranian officials responded with their own historical reference. Rezaei and parliament Speaker Mohammad Bagher Ghalibaf invoked the capture of Roman Emperor Valerian by Persian forces under King Shapur I in 260 AD, warning that those who use history should be prepared for its repetition. Iran’s Foreign Ministry accused Rubio of compressing Greek, Roman, Christian and modern history into an “America First” argument intended to justify military escalation.
Foreign Ministry spokesman Esmaeil Baghaei called the speech an anachronistic attempt to give historical legitimacy to coercion and force. The ministry linked the remarks to a period of reduced fighting after a memorandum of understanding reached in June became defunct. Iranian criticism also reflects wider concern over damage to historical and cultural sites during US bombing since February, as well as earlier threats by Donald Trump to target Iranian sites important to the country’s culture.
Many Iranians reacted negatively to the speech. Shima, a 26-year-old Tehran resident, said she viewed the use of conflicts from 2,500 years ago as an effort to build support for the current war. Rubio had taken a different tone during his January 2025 Senate confirmation hearing, when he distinguished Iran’s people and Persian heritage from the country’s clerical rulers.
The speech came as the war, a naval blockade of southern Iranian ports and sanctions were described as having imposed their heaviest effects on ordinary Iranians without changing the government’s behaviour. An assessment from international-affairs professor Vali Nasr was that Rubio was presenting Iran as a common enemy around which the United States and Europe could rebuild ties, while also reflecting tensions over Europe’s limited role in the war and disagreements involving Russia and Ukraine. In that reading, the rhetoric signals a sharper distinction in Washington between Iran and Russia as the West’s primary adversary, while its effect in Iran has been to blur the separation Rubio previously drew between the Iranian population and its government.