Rubio at the Pnyx: Greece's Legacy Serves Today's Politics

In confronting Iran and advancing its policies in the Middle East, Washington needs Greece's cooperation, given its membership in the EU and NATO, its geographic location, and its military capabilities. Athens, for its part, uses military and security cooperation with the US to strengthen its position in its rivalry with Turkey and to control illegal migration.

Ambassador Arjan; Mandana Khorram- On the evening of October 7, 2026, Marco Rubio, the US Secretary of State, appeared on top of the Penix hill in Athens, with a view of the Acropolis, during his business trip to Greece, and began his speech. In ancient times, the place of this speech was a meeting place for Athenian citizens to discuss and make decisions about the affairs of the city, and it is known as one of the symbols of the formation of democracy.

In this historical space, he linked the past to the language of today's politics. He praised the heritage of ancient Greece and Christianity, and referring to historical and mythological figures and models, from Socrates and Achilles to Spartan warriors and Christian martyrs, he considered honor, duty and sacrifice to be the building blocks of Western civilization.

On the other hand, by recalling the attack of Xerxes' troops on Athens and then criticizing Iran's religious leadership's perception of sacrifice and martyrdom, he drew a line between two notions of heroism. In this incomplete narrative structure, the legacy of Greece was freed as the basis for the definition of the western "us" and Iran, from ancient confrontations to today's conflicts, was placed in the position of its tyrannical eastern "other".

Nevertheless, these words were met with critical reactions in the media and social networks of Iran and Greece in the atmosphere of continued tension between Iran and the United States and concern about the escalation of conflicts.

According to some Iranian users, Rubio needs a historical lineage to portray America as a superior and victorious power, and by relying on the Greek heritage and putting Greece on the other side, he tries to give moral and civilizational credibility to Washington's policies today.

In Greece, Procopius Pavlopoulos, the former president, while praising the Greek heritage, considered Rubio's speech as an attempt to justify America's global dominance. By criticizing the claims of the superiority of the Western civilization, he emphasized the equality of civilizations and the possibility of dialogue between the East and the West, and questioned Rubio's lack of attention to international law and the sovereignty of countries.

Politics in the light of ancient Greece

In Athens, however, Greek Prime Minister Kyriakos Mitsotakis praised Rubio's words and once again introduced his country as a bridge between the West, the Middle East and the Arab world; A role that he emphasized in the UN General Assembly less than a month ago.

With this interpretation, he introduces Greece as an active member of the Western world that can strengthen the West's connection with the Middle East and the Arab world. This approach is not new and was controversial in the internal politics of Greece in the late 1970s. As in the political contests of that period, Konstantinos Karamanlis, with a liberal-conservative tendency, emphasized the phrase "Greece belongs to the West".

On the other hand, Andreas Papandreou, with a socialist tendency, puts forward the slogan "Greece belongs to the Greeks". This confrontation revealed the conflict over the relationship between belonging to the West and national independence; This confrontation revealed a part of the Greeks' long-standing conflict about how to maintain independence and national identity in connection with the West; A conflict that goes beyond the competition of politicians and also flows in the society's narrative of its past. Museums and textbooks play a role in shaping this narrative.

For example, the exhibition "Glorious Victories; Between Myth and History" was opened in the National Archaeological Museum of Athens in 2020, on the occasion of the 2500th anniversary of the Battle of Thermopylae and the Naval Battle of Salamis.

Lina Mendoni, the Minister of Culture at the time, in the commemoration ceremony of this anniversary, firstly reminded the revolution of 1821 and the liberation of Greece from the Ottoman rule. Then he called the resistance of the Greeks against the Persians the defense of freedom and civilization against "Eastern tyranny" and "totalitarianism" and considered it a model for the identification of the next generations of Greeks and the entire Western world.

In this retelling, the memory of the ancient battles and the struggle for independence were placed along a common narrative: the defense of freedom against the Eastern domination; A narrative that introduced Greece as the source and defender of Western civilization, and this image is reflected not only in the words of politicians and museum narratives, but also in the history books of Greek schools. In these books, the resistance of the Greeks against the expansionism of the Persians is highlighted, and in religious education, Islam is introduced from the perspective of the orthodox Christian tradition. These narratives contribute to shaping the Greek identity and its image of the "other".

Therefore, Rubio's words are not limited to building a historical support for America; It relies on a narrative that Athens itself also benefits from for identity and politics. In order to understand the roots of this narrative, we must go to the developments of the past few centuries in Greece and the geopolitical developments that shape the political identity of Greece today.

To understand this link between Greek identity and geopolitics, one must go back to the experience of Greeks living under Ottoman rule. During this period, the connection of many Greeks with their ancient past was broken and the Orthodox Church, relying on the religious and cultural heritage of Byzantium, became the most important pillar of their identity.

However, from the 17th century and especially in the 18th century, the expansion of trade networks and Greek communities far from the homeland in Europe opened a new horizon for them. Greek merchants and intellectuals recognized their ancient past as one of the intellectual sources of modern Europe when they got to know the Enlightenment ideas. The reading of this past was connected with the growth of the spirit of nationalism and the desire to compensate for what they considered their backwardness. They could now present themselves as inheritors of the heritage on which modern Europe had built a part of its identity and use this bond as a basis for demanding freedom, independence and a place in the new world.

On the other hand, the rise of nationalism among the Greeks coincided with the competition of Russia, Britain and France over the Ottoman territory. These powers, with different and sometimes changing policies, tried to connect the independence of the Greeks with their interests. Russia, especially after the small treaty of Qinarje in 1774, claimed to support Orthodox Christians as a basis for expanding its influence in the Black Sea and Ottoman territory.

In this framework, religious solidarity against the Ottoman Muslim rule became the language of justifying geopolitical competition.

Britain and France also entered this conflict with calculations about the balance of power, curbing Russian influence and maintaining their position. At the same time, the movement of Greek lovers in Europe saw its independence as the revival of the land that it considered the source of European civilization. Therefore, in the context of the "Eastern Question", that is, the conflict over the future of the Ottoman Empire and the balance of power around it, the redefinition of the Greek identity was tied to the competition of powers. Thus, Greek nationalism came from power: a reference to antiquity and a link with the West among sections of the elite, and a reliance on Orthodoxy and the legacy of Eastern Christianity in mobilizing the masses. These two tendencies met each other in the revolution of 1821 and turned liberation from Ottoman rule into a common demand.

But the Greeks needed the support of European powers both during the wars of independence and after achieving independence to confront the Ottomans and realize the goal of restoring the past glory, so the narrative of belonging to the West was welcomed among the elites. This need brought the independence gained from their struggle with the influence of the supporting powers: international recognition, defining borders, choosing a king and securing loans for the nascent government were tied to the decision of Britain, France and Russia and made it possible for them to intervene in the country's political system.

This influence was accompanied by a hierarchical view of the Greek identity. A part of the Europeans, although they considered ancient Greece as the source of their civilization, but they saw the contemporary Greeks as people influenced by the "oriental" life, who must prove the merit of inheriting that past.

Thus, Europe was both a supporter of Greek independence with its own political and geopolitical purposes, and the owner of the criterion for judging the civilization and progress of Greece.

The election of Athens as the capital in 1834, with the support of the Bavarian court, cemented this link in the image of the new government: the ancient glory of the city overcame practical considerations, while Constantinople remained for many the ideal capital of the future.

In this reading, returning to antiquity was both the support of the Greeks' desire for independence and the way to gain acceptance and support in Europe, which considered their past as part of its identity.

This link became more important after the military defeat of 1922 and the Lausanne arrangement in 1923. The failure of the dream of a great Greece, the settlement of refugees and the need to rebuild the economy increased the Greek government's need for financial resources and foreign support; A need that was reflected in international loans under the supervision of the League of Nations.

After World War II and during the civil war, America became the main support of the Athenian government. Truman Doctrine aid in 1947 and Greece's NATO membership in 1952 strengthened its economic and security reliance on the West.

For parts of the Greek elite, this rapprochement was both an affirmation of the country's European identity and a way to modernize and compensate for what they considered their historical backwardness. The narrative "Origin of Western Civilization and Democracy" also gives identity to this semantic connection.

On the other hand, Greece's position in Southeast Europe and the Mediterranean was important for the strategy of containing the Soviet Union and strengthening NATO's southern wing. The primacy of these considerations became more evident during the dictatorship of the colonels, from 1967 to 1974: the Nixon administration resumed the suspended military equipment shipment in 1970, citing the strategic importance of Greece for the security of the West as the reason for its decision. Support for the rule of the colonels showed that the preservation of the strategic alliance could take precedence over the return of democracy in the "home of democracy".

In this reading, the narrative of Greece's belonging to the West was based on mutual but unequal needs: Athens wanted resources, prestige and security support, and the Western powers needed Greece's position to advance their political and geopolitical strategies.

Repeating a historical pattern in the geopolitical competition between the West and the Middle East

Now, Rubio's words and the reception of some Greek officials can also be understood in the framework of this historical pattern. In this reading, Washington needs Greece's support in confronting Iran and advancing its policies in the Middle East; A country whose membership in the European Union and NATO, its geographical location and military facilities, give it an important place in the US regional strategy. Athens also benefits from military and security cooperation with the United States to strengthen its position in competition with Turkey, increase its defense capacity against possible conflicts and control illegal immigration.

This two-sided need becomes the support of a narrative that retells the past one-sidedly: Greece is placed along the western civilization and the east appears more in the face of the threat. In this narrative, the cultural exchanges between Iran and Greece and the contribution of scholars of the Islamic world in preserving, expanding and transmitting the Greek scientific and philosophical heritage are sidelined.

The dual view of the western powers towards the Greeks also fades. On the one hand, it praises Greece as the birthplace of Western democracy, but on the other hand, it does not mention America's support of the colonels' dictatorial rule.

Therefore, this civilizational demarcation, more than explaining the complexity of the common past, gives meaning and legitimacy to the political needs of the two states today: America gets historical support for its power from Greece, and the Greek government seeks prestige and strategic support, especially against Türkiye, from the confirmation of this narrative.