From Xerxes to American Order: Rubio's Civilizational Narrative on the War with Iran

The speech by the US Secretary of State in Athens should be examined as more than a historical oration about Greece and Rome.

Ambassador Arjan of the International Group: Donald Trump has made unprecedented threats against Iran many times in the past months, and in one of the most explicit cases, he has spoken of the destruction of "a complete civilization". Now, in his unusual speech in Athens, US Secretary of State Marco Rubio, recalling Xerxes' attack on Greece, talked about the heritage of ancient Greece and Rome and announced America as the heir of this civilization. He then put today's Iranian leaders against Western moral values ​​and emphasized the necessity of defending Western civilization. These words show that the current confrontation between Iran and America cannot be analyzed only in the framework of the nuclear case, oil and the Strait of Hormuz; The issue also comes back to the competition for power and the order that Washington wants to maintain.

Rubio delivered his speech on the Penix Hill in Athens, near the Acropolis; A place that has special importance for the political history of ancient Greece. In part of his speech, he introduced himself as the Secretary of State of the United States of America and a descendant of immigrants who came to the New World from Spain. Then he spoke about Deini, which according to him, the passage of time and geographical distance cannot destroy it.

Rubio considered the history of America mixed with the heritage of ancient times and said that Greece is present in the architecture of the American government, from the columns and domes to the monuments of the capital. He tried to establish a historical link between ancient Greece, Rome, European Christianity and the English liberal tradition on the one hand and the formation of America on the other hand.

In this narrative, America is not just a military and economic power; Rather, he is introduced as the heir and protector of Western civilization. In the continuation of the speech, Rubio also warned that the decisions of the next decade will determine whether the West will maintain its position at the top of the world or will go towards erosion and decline. In this way, the issue of preserving American power is tied to the defense of the identity and cultural heritage of the West.

One of the notable parts of Rubio's speech was recalling the attack of Xerxes' army on Athens in 480 BC. Describing the fate of the Acropolis, he said: "The Iranians looted the temples, set fire to the shrines, and razed the Acropolis to the ground."

Placing ancient Iran's attack on Athens at the beginning of the speech, comparing Iran's leaders today with Western moral values, and then calling for the defense of Western civilization creates a clear political framework. In this framework, Iran is not only on the side of a political or security dispute, but on the opposite side of a civilization that the United States declares itself to be the heir to. The importance of this view becomes clearer when Rubio says that today's decisions will determine the fate of the next century, and the West must take action to maintain its position at the top of the world. He wants Europe to regain its lost self-confidence, strengthen its military and industrial power and once again prepare to defend the values ​​that it calls the heritage of Western civilization.

Iran's main crime; Challenging the American Order

The main problem should be found elsewhere. In the logic of the order formed under the leadership of the United States, countries have the right to choose as long as their decisions do not challenge the general framework of this order. Dominant powers set the rules of the game and expect others to eventually obey them, even if they disagree with these rules.

A country that leaves this framework is not only facing a political or security dispute; It may be introduced as a threat to global stability, international security or even human civilization. From this point of view, the most important issue of Iran for Washington cannot be summarized only in the nuclear case, missile power, regional relations or the Strait of Hormuz. The problem is that Iran wants to make decisions independently of the will of America and challenge the existing order.

In other words, what is unacceptable for Washington is not only the specific behaviors of a government; Rather, it is the possibility of the formation of a power that does not accept the rules set by the United States and tries to change them. In this framework, embargo, economic blockade, political pressure and even military attack can become a tool to force a country to accept the favorable rules of the dominant power.

Examining the examples of Venezuela and Syria can help to understand this logic. After the US military operation in Venezuela in January 2026 and the arrest of Nicolás Maduro, the political structure of this country was not completely replaced by the former opposition. Delsey Rodríguez, Maduro's former deputy, took over the interim administration of the country, and parts of the former government remained in the power structure. On the other hand, the interim government's relations with Washington entered a new phase, and Venezuela's oil revenues were also monitored by the United States. In its reports, Reuters has announced the continuation of Washington's role in managing oil revenues and the economic future of this country.

In the meantime, Donald Trump did not support the transfer of power to Maria Corina Machado, the main leader of Maduro's opposition, and expressed doubts about her ability to run the country. These developments show that the desired change in Washington does not necessarily always mean the removal of the entire former political structure and the coming to power of its opponents; Sometimes, changing the direction of the government and accompanying it with the demands of the United States is also of decisive importance.

Syria is another example of changing the position of actors in power equations. Ahmad al-Shara, known as Jolani, was once the leader of a group that the United States had listed as a terrorist organization and had set a ten million dollar reward for information leading to his arrest. After the fall of Bashar al-Assad's government in December 2024, Washington took the path of engagement with the new Syrian leader and announced that it would no longer pursue the reward set for his arrest.

This change occurred in a situation where Israel continued its attacks in Syria. In May 2025, an attack was carried out near the presidential palace in Damascus, which the Syrian government condemned, but did not lead to a direct military confrontation with Israel. As a result, the country, whose new leader was wanted by the US, entered a phase of diplomatic interaction with Washington; However, differences and external pressures continued.

These examples show that in power politics, the position of actors can be changed by changing their behavior and political orientation. Someone who was declared an enemy yesterday, may become a negotiating party or partner today, provided that he does not challenge the desired order of America.

Rubio's speech in Athens should be seen as more than a historical speech about Greece and Rome. By recalling the attack of Xerxes on Athens, introducing America as the heir of Western civilization and placing Iran's leaders today against the moral values ​​of the West, he placed the contemporary war in a civilizational framework. In such a narrative, maintaining America's position at the head of the world and defending the desirable order of the West becomes more important than the dispute over a few limited cases.

In such an order, following the demands of the dominant power can turn a hostile actor into a negotiating partner; But resistance to the rules set by that power may present the same country as a threat to global security, stability, or civilization. From this point of view, Iran's biggest problem for Washington should be found in its effort to maintain its decision-making independence and challenge the American order. The nuclear case, sanctions and regional issues, although real and important, do not explain the whole story. The fundamental question is whether Iran has the right to choose its own path independently of the will of the United States and play a role in shaping regional and global rules, or is it forced to accept the order defined by Washington in order to get rid of the pressures?

If America considers itself the heir of Greece and Rome, it cannot summarize the history of these civilizations only in their victories and achievements. The history of Rome has also recorded great defeats against Iran; including the captivity of Valerian, the Roman emperor, by Shapur I of Sassanid in 260 AD. This is also a part of the historical heritage of the same civilization that Rubio is talking about. History cannot be limited to a one-sided narrative of the glory of the West and the threat of the East; Just as America considers itself the heir of great civilizations, it must accept that Iran also has an independent history and is not going to define its position only within the framework that Washington has set for it.