Iran’s 2,500-Year War with the West - The lessons of our long history of engagement with Persia

Iran's 2,500-Year War with the West
The lessons of our long history of engagement with Persia

Iran is at war with the West!

Even as Western politicians remain oblivious to the threat, it has not escaped the notice of Arab governments. A few weeks ago, Saudi armored formations entered Bahrain to help that nation’s government defeat a Shia rebellion. While it is tempting to view Bahrain’s revolt as part of the greater upheaval challenging governments throughout the region, that is only part of the story. In reality, Iran is bidding to extend its influence throughout the Persian Gulf oil-producing areas. By infiltrating Shia organizations in Bahrain, Saudi Arabia, and southern Iraq, Iran is working to destabilize neighboring governments. Even as it drives toward possession of nuclear weapons, Iran is conducting a shadow campaign as part of a long-term war to dominate a region vital to the West’s economic survival.

Despite what is happening before its very eyes, the Obama administration and other Western governments remain set on negotiating with Iran. This betrays a fundamental misunderstanding of Iran’s aims. In the administration’s defense, however, the West has never understood Iran, nor Iran the West. In fact, our mutual 2,500-year track record since Persian civilization first encountered the West is one of nearly unrelenting conflict.

History never presents a clear roadmap of the future, and its lessons are often clouded in mist. Still, policymakers ignore history at great peril. For even the most enlightened persons still view the world though historical and cultural prisms established centuries ago.

Today, the West is pulling out all the stops in hopes of engaging Iran to give up its nuclear ambitions and enter into a lasting peace. Unfortunately, two and a half millennia of history demonstrate that the prospects for a resolution short of conflict or Western surrender are bleak.

When Iran, then called Persia, first sent an army to conquer the West 2,500 years ago, it was met by merely 10,000 hoplites, most of them Athenian. Sent by the Persian king, Darius, to extinguish an infant Western Civilization, the Persians outnumbered the Athenians by as much as five or six to one. Miraculously, the Athenians won the day at Marathon, saving not only their own city, but also the ideas of democracy, freedom, and open markets, which have so long underpinned what it means to be part of the West. Unfortunately, this first violent clash of civilizations did not end matters. The Persians returned and were again driven back only a decade later, beginning a pattern of East–West conflict that has raged in many incarnations for well over two thousand years.

One is tempted to dismiss the notion that this first clash of civilizations was a contest between political and economic systems, and not just another attempt at conquest by a dominant power over a perceived weaker one. However, the words of Darius’s predecessor, Cyrus the Great, the creator of the Persian Empire, betray the true underlying motives. Cyrus, after being warned by a Spartan envoy to desist from attacking any Greek cities, inquired of his advisers about the relatively unknown Greeks. When he had learned more about them, Cyrus replied to the Spartan, “I have never yet feared any men who had a place set aside in the center of their city for meeting together, swearing false oaths, and cheating one another.” Here, over 25 centuries ago, is encapsulated the first recorded instance of an Eastern ruler expressing his contempt for the just-emerging democratic and market-oriented values of Western society.

Cyrus’s statement of contempt marked the start of a Persian policy of conquest, intended to exterminate such foreign ideas. It marks the beginning of an East–West cultural divide that still roils global affairs today. We live in a world that has been shaped for centuries by this divide and the conflicts born from it.

In no small measure, Rome proved unable to resist the barbarian invasions from the north because its strength was sapped fighting off invading Iranian (then called Parthian) armies. Later, when Iran became the Sassanid Empire, its constant attacks on Byzantium so weakened that great empire that it was incapable of resisting invading Arab armies fighting under the banner of Islam. Then, as part of (or in alliance with) the Islamic caliphate, Iran provided troops and treasure to aid in an almost constant assault on the West.

Throughout two and half millennia, Iran, in its various guises, has maintained one stable foreign policy: Whenever it possessed the strength to do so, it acted with all the means at its disposal to destroy or damage Western interests. Respites from these attacks came only during those periods when Iran was weak or when the West was strong and confident enough to make prodding it a dangerous undertaking. Those who are surprised that a resurgent Iran again confronts the West are demonstrating a remarkably shallow grasp of history. For one would be hard pressed to find a better example of a fixed continuity of purpose transcending the ages.

Given such a track record, one should wonder if it is even possible to fashion any kind of political, diplomatic, or economic inducement that might prove sufficient to deter Iran from its present course. In the past, only a West that was confident in its own institutions and possessed an overwhelming military superiority, coupled with a determination to use it to uphold its principles and values, has proved capable of keeping Iranian ambitions in check. On the other hand, whenever Iran’s rulers sensed weakness, they have never hesitated to use all available force to the detriment of the West.

It is surely hubris for representatives of Western governments to go forward in their dealings with Iran in the belief that somehow Iran will adopt a more enlightened outlook, leading to a lasting outcome favorable to the West. Hope, of course, springs eternal, and every generation manages to convince itself that this time things will be different. Such an outlook might be forgivable for two millennia or so, but halfway through the third millennium since Marathon, one might reasonably expect that Western governments would start to catch on to history’s longest-lasting truism. Although no trend lasts forever, this is one that diplomats should not rush to bet against.

Iran’s ambitions, and its propensity to use military power to achieve them, will not be thwarted by inducements or a demonstration of the West’s benign intentions. Iran is looking through an ancient historical prism that has shaped its mindset since its troops met the Athenians on the Plain of Marathon — a mindset that views a West that would rather talk than act as weak. For Iran’s rulers, such weakness is and always has been something to take advantage of.

— Jim Lacey is a professor of strategic studies at the Marine Corps War College and the author of The First Clash. The views in this article are the author’s own and do not in any way represent the views or positions of the Department of Defense or any of its members.

Dr James Lacey is Director War Policy & Strategy; Professor Economics and National Power, at Marine Corps War College – IOW, he is An Academic. That said, it appears that Iranian history is not his forte.

Any person w/ basic knowledge of Iranian history would know there are 2 distinct parts to that history: Pre-Islam & Post-Islam. Aside from Very few exceptions, largely, Iran, post-Islam (after Arab-Islam conquest in the 7th century AD & to date) is not comparable to what she was pre-Islam.

It would've been more appropriate for Lacey to choose post-Islam references/context to present his argument; there are a couple of more relevant examples to today's situation w/ Iran. Moreover, the regime ruling Iran since 1979 is in a league of its own. Not to mention that today’s geopolitics, particularly in the ME & North African region, are not the same as 2500 yrs ago.

Overall, James Lacey make a couple of valid points. But, there are better ways of arguing against continuous Western support & appeasement of the regime, which has been occupying Iran for the past 32 yrs. Lacey’s reference to history of 2500 yrs ago, in a selective & biased fashion, is not one of them.

For instance, Lacey could also write about Alexander’s invasion & later the Seleucid Empire (One and Two), which also ruled Iran. It was the Seleucids who gradually tried to force Hellenization upon the Jewish people in their territory by outlawing Judaism. This eventually led to the revolt of the Jews under Seleucid control - (tho Lacey has the audacity to criticize Cyrus the Great!). Equally, the Seleucids also tried to expand their Empire into Greece & began their own War with Rome.

Later, when Iran became the Sassanid Empire, its constant attacks on Byzantium so weakened that great empire that it was incapable of resisting invading Arab armies fighting under the banner of Islam.
Over simplification. The Byzantine-Sassanid War of 602–628 left both empires bankrupt and spent. This was a huge war, which crupled a third empire, the Gok Turkut. The Byzantines and WEstern Turkut fought two wars as allies against the Sassanid Persian and Avar Khanate. By the end of the war, everything from the Ferangia Valley to Pannonia and south to the Nile was in shambles. The Muslim Arabs took advantage in the south, quickly overrunning all of the Persian Empire. As the Gog Turkut collapse, the Khazars went from being subjects to rulers in the western half as the Chinese moved in from the East. The Muslims swept in from the south leading to a century of Khazar-Caliphate wars. While the Gokturkut partially re-established itself 30 years later, it was then conquered by the Muslims and the Chinese. Between 715 and 751 the Chinese and Caliphate fought 2 wars ending in stalemate. To blame this of the Persians is silly. The Byzantine Empire interfered in Persian politics and the Persians responded, prompting a war.

Then, as part of (or in alliance with) the Islamic caliphate, Iran provided troops and treasure to aid in an almost constant assault on the West.
For 600 or so years, right up till the Safavid dynasty took over Persia rebelled against the Ottoman Caliphs and secured the division by making Shia Islam the state sect. Everything is complicated.

Jim Lacey wrote: Then, as part of (or in alliance with) the Islamic caliphate, Iran provided troops and treasure to aid in an almost constant assault on the West.

You said: For 600 or so years, right up till the Safavid dynasty took over Persia rebelled against the Ottoman Caliphs and secured the division by making Shia Islam the state sect. Everything is complicated.

You're right, it is complicated. Unfortunately, Lacey makes it even more confusing by not explaining events in any detail, and by being selective & biased.

Hope I won't make it more convoluted by mentioning a few pertinent points:

Lacey is referring to Arab-Moslem Caliphate immediately after the Sassanid Empire was overthrown in a critical, huge & bloody battle w/ Moslem-Arabs in Nahavand in the 7th century AD; it took place after Mohammad's death.

Following abovementioned event, 3 main Arab-Moslem Caliphates, directly, ruled Iran for nearly 2 centuries (Patriarchal, Ummayyad & Abbassid – in that order). The Iranian dynasty (post-Arab invasion of Iran) who, essentially, were moslem converts & can be considered a proxy of Abbassid’s Arab Caliphs, were the Samanids - they ruled for about 180 yrs. I think, it is the Samanids that Jim Lacey is referring to in terms of “alliance with Islamic caliphate”. It was also the Samanids who took Sunni Islam further beyond Iranian borders.

The Turkish Ottoman Empire Caliphate did not come into play until 16th century AD.

You're also correct, Shia Islam became the official state religion in Iran during the Turkic speaking Safavid dynasty in the latter part of 16th century AD. Shia Islam was forced on Iranians by the Safavids. Prior to that & for approx. 1000 yrs, Iran was by majority as Sunni country.

A key learning point from that period of history, IMO, is: had the Byzantines & Persians put their differences aside, supported one another & united against the vile Moslem-Arabs, the Bedouin Arabs, most probably, would’ve been defeated, or at least prevented from spreading their atrocious ideology thereafter; indirectly or through new converts to Islam. INSTEAD, Jim Lacey, in this article at least, attacks pre-Islam leaders of Iran.

A fundamental question remains: What is Western Civilization? It surely doesn’t refer only to Greeks or Romans of yester years. Nor purely to democracy, depending how democracy is defined to begin with. (I can give many examples of how “Western countries” did not achieve democracy easily, nor quickly; some are still not quite as “democratic” in their practices as we'd like to think they are).

However, Western Civilization is fundamentally meant to be about Christianity; or those countries who by majority are Christians. IOW, it is about Religion. And, Mullahs’ Regime & the mullahs in Iran, along w/ the Saudis et al (regardless of shia or sunni) are the epitome & center of that clash between Christianity & Islam (not pre-Islam "Persian Civilization"). Although, in our infinite lack of wisdom, our Western, representative democratic gov’ts support those in the Islamic world who hold sway, influence & power over the masses there.

>>>>>>They are not united - far from it.This statement is so weird, then I noticed you’re Canadian. Some of my best friends are from Canada, but they’re poorly educated about the Middle East.<<<<<<<

True, many Canadians either have no clue or have Polyanna world view, perhaps it has something to do with watching 90$ of media contents coming south of the border:-)

It is true that the majority of Canadians have no idea of NATO involvement in Afghanistan. Ask any Canadian whether China borders with Afghanistan, and you'll get a blank stare.

But China knows why NATO is in Afghanistan.

Average Canuck has never heard Mad Allbright's ramble that it is not fair that Russia has Siberia only for herself. But Ruskies have taken note.

So, China arms Persia, gives money to Russia for next-generation military research, Russia in turn builds Indian Navy and provides current generation hardware to India, China and Persia. And India and China represent a wide manufacturing base to churn out Russian hardware.

China and India are adversaries, China and Russia are adversaries, Persia is no friend to either of them, yet, they work together and brings others to their scheme. Together, they build BRIC economic block expanding outside of Euroasia. Check the south Atlantic shipping routes China plans to establish to bypass Panama and Suez choke.

Why? Discples of Leo Strauss gave them forewarning. The fact is, Cecil Rhodes design for world domination is going down the toilet. Victorians have finally lost.

Attack on Libya is the last attempt.

America could have profited from that, but did not. Owing to the stupid and greedy neocons.

I am not happy at all because of that.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

· GGG managers are SunkenCiv, StayAt HomeMother, and Ernest_at_the_Beach · · join list or digest · view topics · view or post blog · bookmark · post a topic · subscribe ·
	Antiquity Journal & archive Archaeologica Archaeology Archaeology Channel BAR Bronze Age Forum Discover Dogpile Eurekalert Google LiveScience Mirabilis.ca Nat Geographic PhysOrg Science Daily Science News Texas AM Yahoo Excerpt, or Link only?	Thanks neverdem. Marathon and Salamis! Just adding to the catalog, not sending a general distribution. To all -- please ping me to other topics which are appropriate for the GGG list.
· History topic · history keyword · archaeology keyword · paleontology keyword · · Science topic · science keyword · Books/Literature topic · pages keyword ·