Shift in US-Israeli war narrative

Nine months after the start of the US-Israeli war against Iran, the initial objectives declared by Washington have evolved, and the conflict is becoming prolonged. The war, which began on February 28, 2026, was initially framed around specific goals such as preventing Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons and limiting its military capabilities. However, these objectives have since shifted, and the war now lacks a clear endpoint.

Rubio’s speech in Athens

On October 7, 2026, US Secretary of State Marco Rubio delivered a speech in Athens, Greece, drawing parallels between ancient history and the current conflict with Iran. He invoked the Persian King Xerxes and the destruction of the Acropolis, using the story of Athens' rebuilding as a symbol of Western resilience. Rubio framed the war as part of a broader civilizational struggle, highlighting the continuity of Western power through figures like Alexander the Great and Hernán Cortés.

Historical context of the speech

Rubio’s speech did not explicitly equate Iran with the ancient Persian Empire, but the historical reference is not neutral. The choice to highlight the Greco-Persian Wars implicitly frames the current conflict as a continuation of a civilizational struggle. This narrative positions the United States as the heir to ancient Athens, defending Western civilization against what Rubio describes as an Eastern threat.

Iranian response to the speech

Iranian historian Touraj Daryaee challenged Rubio’s narrative, pointing out that the burning of Athens in 480 BCE was not an isolated event. He noted that Athens had previously participated in the destruction of Sardes, the capital of the Lydian satrapy of the Persian Empire, in 498 BCE. Daryaee argued that the simplistic East-West dichotomy is historically inaccurate, as the Achaemenid Empire included many Greek-speaking subjects and soldiers.

Historical accuracy and colonial legacy

Encyclopaedia Iranica confirms that Athens and Eretria did participate in the attack on Sardes, a key event leading to the Greco-Persian Wars. Meanwhile, Iran’s modern history is marked by imperial influences, including the 1901 D'Arcy concession, which granted British control over Iran’s oil industry, and the 1953 coup that overthrew Prime Minister Mohammad Mossadegh. These events highlight the long-standing mechanisms of neocolonialism, where external powers influence political and economic structures without formal military occupation.

Cultural and intellectual exchanges

The legacy of ancient Greek thought, preserved and expanded by scholars in the Islamic world, challenges the notion of a clear Western intellectual heritage. Many foundational texts in philosophy, medicine, and science were preserved and developed by Arab and Persian scholars, whose contributions later influenced medieval Europe. This historical exchange undermines the narrative of a Western axis from Athens to Rome to Washington.

Historical parallels in anti-Iranian rhetoric

The use of ancient Persian history in anti-Iranian rhetoric is not new. In 2007, the film 300, depicting the battle of Thermopylae, was interpreted by some as a metaphor for the United States’ response to the 9/11 attacks. This historical framing has been used to justify military actions and reinforce the idea of a civilizational conflict between East and West.

Neoconservative ideology in American politics

Rubio’s speech aligns with a long-standing neoconservative ideology that has shaped American foreign policy for over two decades. This ideology was also evident in the speech of Vice President J. D. Vance at the Munich Security Conference in 2025, where he called for a new direction in the “common civilization.” The historical references used by Rubio reflect this ideological framework, which seeks to justify military actions through a broader civilizational narrative.

Initial war objectives and shifting goals

At the beginning of the war in February 2026, the United States and Israel emphasized preventing Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons and limiting its military capabilities. However, these goals have since evolved, with the conflict no longer having a clear endpoint. Intelligence assessments have shown that Iran’s nuclear program was not as advanced as initially claimed, and the possibility of regime change has diminished.

Civilian casualties and international response

The war has resulted in significant civilian casualties, including the bombing of a school in Minab, Iran, which killed 168 people, including many children. An international fact-finding mission concluded that the United States may have been responsible for the attack, potentially constituting war crimes. These incidents have drawn international criticism and raised concerns about the conduct of the war.

Economic and political consequences

The conflict has had lasting economic and political effects, including disruptions to oil logistics, increased energy prices, and internal divisions within the United States. The war has also shifted public opinion, with many Americans disapproving of the government’s handling of the conflict. Despite ongoing military actions, there is no clear exit strategy or resolution in sight.

Return to negotiation

As the war continues, the need for a political agreement has resurfaced. US officials, including Vice President J. D. Vance, have called for Iran to reduce its nuclear enrichment capabilities as a condition for ending the conflict. This shift reflects the growing realization that military action alone cannot resolve the crisis, and negotiations may be necessary to achieve a lasting solution.

Civilizational narrative as political strategy

Rubio’s invocation of ancient history serves as a political strategy, offering a narrative that justifies continued military engagement. By framing the conflict as a civilizational struggle, the United States seeks to legitimize its actions and shift public perception. However, this narrative ignores the complex historical and cultural exchanges that have shaped the modern world.

Human cost and unresolved conflict

The human cost of the war is evident in the destruction and loss of life, particularly in civilian areas. The conflict has disrupted regional stability and global markets, with no clear resolution in sight. As the war continues, the need for a political solution becomes more pressing, but the legacy of historical grievances and ideological narratives complicates the path to peace.