Marco Rubio and the Return to the Clash of Civilizations Narrative: From the Greco-Persian Conflicts to Contemporary Human Rights Concerns

Rasool Mogooei

PhD Candidate in International Relations, University of Isfahan

Introduction

References to history and civilizational heritage in foreign policy can shape the definition of collective identity, the portrayal of threats, and the justification of political choices. When rivalries between states are framed as confrontations between civilizations, contemporary disputes acquire meanings that extend beyond specific interests and policies, becoming associated with the perceived need to defend a particular way of life. Marco Rubio’s speech in Athens, which revisited the Greco-Persian Wars and emphasized the revival of Western power and solidarity, provides an opportunity to examine this form of historical narrative. The central question is how such an interpretation draws upon ancient history and the historical past to explain contemporary conflicts, and what implications it holds for political relations and human rights. This article examines the underlying logic of Rubio’s remarks by tracing the historical portrayal of Iran in opposition to the West and drawing on the clash of civilizations theory. It then assesses, from a human rights perspective, the internal divisions within the West, the limitations of appeals to civilizational unity, and the risks of transforming political disagreements into identity-based divisions.

Rubio in Athens

On October 7, 2026, U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio delivered a speech on the Pnyx Hill in Athens, against the backdrop of the historic Acropolis, using the history of ancient Greece as a framework for explaining the West’s contemporary position and responsibilities. Recalling the invasion of Athens by Xerxes’ army and the resistance of the Greeks, Rubio portrayed the United States and Europe as heirs to a shared legacy whose survival, in his view, depends on recovering their confidence, strength, and political resolve. He linked the defense of Western civilizational heritage to strengthening national sovereignty, rebuilding institutions and alliances, and preparing to confront contemporary threats (American Hellenic Council, 2026). Referring to the ancient wars between Greece and Persia, he recalled the destruction of Athens by the Persians in 480 BCE under Xerxes I, declaring: “The threats we face today are every bit as real as they were on the dramatic stage of antiquity” (Motamedi, 2026).

This narrative was accompanied by a defense of the “America First” policy and an emphasis on the need to strengthen the West’s industrial and military capabilities. In this regard, Rubio stated: “Under President Trump, the United States has made its choice. We choose the unapologetic pursuit of national power” (Landay, 2026). Rubio also contrasted his understanding of sacrifice and heroism in the Western tradition with what he called the “cult of death” of Iran’s rulers. He described the West’s current situation as a historic inflection point and emphasized the need to restore its strength, confidence, and capacity to confront security threats and geopolitical competition (Raufoglu, 2026). Despite the speech’s somewhat epic tone, CBS News noted that Rubio’s account of history was arguably selective. Speaking at a site closely associated with democracy and political equality, he devoted relatively little attention to either concept, focusing instead on competition, national loyalty, and a willingness to take risks (Gazis, 2026). Rubio’s call for greater cooperation and solidarity among Western allies also stood in a degree of contradiction to his defense of American nationalism and the need to reduce the United States’ industrial and economic dependence on other countries.

Iran and the West: A Historical Confrontation

Rubio’s reference to the Greco-Persian Wars transforms the past into a basis for defining Western identity and the threats it faces today. To assess this connection, it is first necessary to distinguish the historical relations between Persia and the Greek city-states from the much later concept of a “confrontation between Iran and the West.” In antiquity, the Greek world did not constitute a unified political entity, nor did the concept of the West exist in its present political and civilizational sense. Accordingly, interpreting the Greco-Persian Wars as part of a continuous confrontation between two civilizations reflects less a direct representation of historical reality than an interpretation of the past through contemporary categories and divisions. Relations between Persia and the Greek city-states, and subsequently with powers such as Macedonia and Rome, involved a combination of warfare, rivalry, political interaction, and cultural exchange. The Greco-Persian Wars of 490 and 480–479 BCE, followed by Alexander the Great’s conquests, were among the most significant military episodes in these relations (Schmitt, 2002: 3, 13). In some Greek historical narratives, these conflicts acquired meanings extending beyond military rivalry. For example, in The Persians, a tragedy by Aeschylus first performed in 472 BCE, the defeat of the Persian kings by the Greeks was portrayed through a binary opposition between despotism and freedom. The association of Persia with despotism and luxury was another theme emphasized in Greek literature to accentuate the perceived divide between Persia and Greece (Bichler & Rollinger, 2002: 2). Nevertheless, Persia’s financial and political support for Sparta in its war against Athens demonstrates that political alliances did not necessarily follow cultural boundaries and that political circumstances sometimes fostered connections between Persia and the Greek city-states (Schmitt, 2002: 9–10). Archaeological evidence also points to the adoption of elements of Persian material culture in the Greek world and the role of diplomatic contacts in facilitating their transmission (Miller, 2002: 1–3). These cultural exchanges were not, however, one-directional. In later periods, particularly during the Sasanian era, Greek thought and knowledge also influenced Persian intellectual and cultural life in fields such as philosophy and medicine (Shaki, 2012).

Similarly, during the period of the Sasanian Empire in Iran, alongside warfare and conflict with Rome, trade, frontier affairs, and cultural and religious relations created opportunities for interaction and shared interests (Dignas & Winter, 2007: 2). Moreover, the portrayal of Persia in Greek literature was not an unmediated reflection of reality, but was also shaped by stereotyping and political propaganda (Bichler & Rollinger, 2002: 1–2). It should also be recognized that interpretations of these representations are themselves influenced by the political circumstances of different periods. Edith Hall, Professor in the Department of Classics and Ancient History at Durham University in the United Kingdom, reflects on her research into the concept of the “barbarian” and explains that the model of the “self” and the “other” took a particular form during the Cold War. Following the collapse of the Soviet Union and the Gulf War, the image of the Soviet communist as the West’s enemy gave way to that of the Islamic extremist (Hall, 2006: 224). This pattern of representation persisted into the contemporary era. In his State of the Union address on January 29, 2002, George W. Bush placed Iran alongside Iraq and North Korea within the group of countries he designated the “Axis of Evil.” This historical background demonstrates that the image of a confrontation between Iran and the West has been interpreted in different periods according to the political needs and conflicts of the time. Rubio’s reinterpretation can be examined from the same perspective: by linking ancient battles to contemporary threats, he transforms civilizational identity into a framework for explaining conflict and calling for solidarity. Samuel Huntington’s clash of civilizations theory provides a relevant analytical framework for understanding this way of conceptualizing global politics.

The Clash of Civilizations Theory

In his 1993 article, The Clash of Civilizations?, Samuel Huntington advanced the hypothesis that, following the Cold War, the most significant global conflicts would arise primarily from cultural and civilizational differences rather than ideological or economic divisions, although states would remain the most powerful actors in world politics. He defined civilization as the broadest level of cultural identity, grounded in elements such as history, language, religion, traditions, and a shared sense of belonging. Within this framework, civilizational boundaries become the principal focal points of conflict, although Huntington himself acknowledged that cultural differences do not necessarily lead to conflict, nor does conflict necessarily result in violence (Huntington, 1993: 22-25). Rubio’s emphasis on the West’s shared heritage and his interpretation of contemporary threats through the lens of ancient confrontations are analytically consistent with the prominence Huntington’s theory assigns to civilizational identity. From this perspective, Rubio’s remarks elevate political and security disagreements with Iran to the level of identity and civilization, linking the defense of Western interests to the preservation of a shared history, set of values, and way of life.

Huntington’s theory helps explain the underlying logic of Rubio’s remarks by illustrating how civilizational belonging can serve as a basis for defining “us,” identifying threats, and calling for solidarity. This similarity does not, of course, imply that Rubio explicitly referred to Huntington. Nevertheless, it is difficult to overlook the considerable influence this thinker has exerted on the West, helping to foster a climate of binary opposition between the West and other cultures and civilizations around the world. However, the capacity of such a narrative to generate solidarity depends on the extent of agreement among the members of the entity described as the “West.” As Peter J. Katzenstein, Professor of International Studies at Cornell University in the United States, emphasizes, civilizations encompass multiple traditions, debates, and conflicts within themselves (Katzenstein, 2010: 1). Consequently, analyzing Rubio’s call for civilizational unity raises the question of how far the United States and Europe agree on their common interests, threats, and values.

Divisions Within Contemporary Western Civilization

Rubio’s speech in Athens came at a time when relations between the United States and Europe were facing multiple tensions, including the U.S. war with Iran, Washington’s inconsistent support for Ukraine’s defense against Russia, disagreements within NATO, including Trump’s recent demands to assert sovereignty over Greenland, and a growing ideological divide fueled by influential officials such as U.S. Vice President JD Vance. The Trump administration’s changing approach to the exercise of national power has raised concerns among many European allies. These allies continue to seek compromises that would preserve the Trump administration’s cooperation on major issues, including support for Ukraine and economic cooperation within the framework of the European Union (Roth, 2026). Perhaps this explains why Rubio extended a hand of friendship at the foot of the Acropolis, declaring: “We believe that Europe can awaken from its long slumber and rekindle the fire that was lit here millennia ago” (American Hellenic Council, 2026).

Nevertheless, invoking a shared civilizational heritage does not, in itself, resolve existing disagreements over interests, sovereignty, and leadership within the Western alliance. The parties also face fundamental questions concerning the limits of their mutual commitments and the legitimacy of exerting pressure on one another. The Greenland dispute provides a clear illustration of the complexity of transatlantic relations. In a joint statement issued on January 17, 2026, the Presidents of the European Council and the European Commission expressed solidarity with Denmark and the people of Greenland, reaffirmed the principles of sovereignty and territorial integrity, and warned of the consequences that escalating trade pressures could have for transatlantic relations (European Council, 2026). Nevertheless, the signing of a new security agreement between the United States, Denmark, and Greenland on September 22, 2026, demonstrated that, despite their previous disagreements, the parties remained capable of reaching cooperative arrangements in the field of shared security. In his Athens speech, Rubio also presented this agreement as an example of the mutual benefits of transatlantic cooperation (American Hellenic Council, 2026). However, the agreement does not necessarily mean that all disagreements concerning sovereignty, security prerogatives, and economic interests have been resolved. The significance of this experience for the present discussion lies in the fact that civilizational solidarity neither prevents disagreements from emerging among allies nor is sufficient, on its own, to resolve them. Rather, sustained cooperation requires negotiation, agreement, and the establishment of practical mechanisms for managing divergent interests.

This divide has also extended into the security sphere, raising questions about confidence in the continuity of American support. A Reuters report published on October 17, 2026, concerning escalating disagreements between Washington and Kyiv, highlighted concerns over possible restrictions on intelligence sharing and a weakening of U.S. support for Ukraine (Lewis et al., 2026). This situation demonstrates that identifying a common threat does not necessarily produce agreement on the costs of confronting it, the conditions for compromise, or the continuation of security commitments. In this context, the European Commission’s plans to expand defense production, strengthen joint procurement, and reduce critical dependencies take on particular significance (European Commission, 2026). These measures can be viewed as indications of Europe’s efforts to enhance its capacity for independent decision-making and action, thereby reducing its vulnerability should Washington’s priorities change. Consequently, while strengthening Europe’s defense capabilities may contribute to closer transatlantic cooperation, it also creates the possibility of reducing reliance on the United States.

Disagreements also extend to interpretations of the values that are supposed to underpin Western unity. This issue became evident in German Defense Minister Boris Pistorius’s response to JD Vance’s speech at the Munich Security Conference in February 2025. Pistorius rejected the comparison of European democracies with authoritarian regimes and emphasized the need to defend democracy against extremist forces while upholding freedom of expression, the rule of law, and human dignity (Hains, 2025). This dispute reveals a profound divergence: even when both sides invoke shared concepts such as “freedom” and “democracy,” they do not necessarily agree on their practical meaning or the limits of defending them. Rubio’s call to revive Western values therefore encounters an unresolved question: which interpretation of these values should form the basis of solidarity, and who has the authority to determine it?

In light of these disagreements, Rubio’s remarks can be understood as an attempt to construct and reconstruct Western solidarity, the realization of which remains dependent on negotiation and compromise over interests and values. This interpretation is consistent with Katzenstein’s emphasis on the internal plurality of civilizations: a shared historical and cultural heritage does not eliminate the existence of different traditions, conflicts, and priorities within a civilization (Katzenstein, 2010: 1). On this basis, the clash of civilizations theory helps explain how Rubio’s remarks draw boundaries between the “West” and the “other.” However, understanding the actual relationship between the United States and Europe also requires consideration of the divisions within this very “West.” Highlighting an external rival may encourage greater convergence, but resolving disagreements over sovereignty, security, and economic interests requires concrete guarantees and practical agreements.

Civilizational War and Its Human Rights Implications

Efforts to strengthen Western solidarity by emphasizing an external rival raise questions not only about internal disagreements but also about the implications of such divisions for the societies on the opposing side. Even if a civilizational narrative fails to overcome the divisions between the United States and Europe, it may still influence how those societies are portrayed and the degree of concern shown for the rights and suffering of their populations. Assessing Rubio’s remarks therefore also requires examining the human consequences of framing conflict as a defense of civilization. Within the scope of the present discussion, the primary concern relates to the potential consequences of linking contemporary political conflicts to a narrative of historical confrontation between civilizations. Although Rubio distinguishes between Iran’s political system and the country’s civilizational heritage, directing his criticism primarily at Iran’s rulers, placing these criticisms alongside a reinterpretation of the Greco-Persian Wars may create the conditions for understanding the current political conflict as part of a broader identity-based confrontation. If such an interpretation gains traction in public opinion and policymaking, it could blur the distinction between opposition to a government’s conduct and the portrayal of that country’s society or culture as an enemy.

The more a conflict is portrayed as a struggle for the survival of a civilization, the greater the risk that the imperative of victory will override humanitarian considerations, with harm inflicted on the opposing population presented as an unavoidable cost of preserving “us.” From this perspective, the human rights significance of Rubio’s remarks lies in examining the potential of such a narrative to alter the standards by which war and its victims are judged. Portraying Iran as a civilizational threat could facilitate the emergence of a consensus among Western countries, similar to the Western mobilization that followed September 11 under the banner of the “War on Terror,” which even brought Australian troops into the war. Should such convergence lead to the justification of large-scale military interventions, the risk of repeating the human consequences experienced in Iraq and Afghanistan—from civilian casualties and displacement to the destruction of vital infrastructure—would increase.

The first risk is a decline in sensitivity to the suffering of civilians situated on the other side of the civilizational divide. When the opposing society is portrayed as a homogeneous and threatening entity, distinctions among political leaders, military personnel, political opponents, and ordinary citizens become blurred in public perception. Under such circumstances, victims may be regarded as members of the enemy camp before being recognized as human beings entitled to rights. In April 2024, Mirjana Spoljaric, President of the International Committee of the Red Cross, warned against the dehumanization of entire populations and disregard for the rules protecting victims. She emphasized that the continuation of such trends would also undermine the future capacity of international humanitarian law to protect human beings (Spoljaric, 2024). In relation to civilizational narratives, it can be argued that transforming collective identity into a marker of threat creates social conditions conducive to justifying more extensive harm, even when such justification is not explicitly articulated in political discourse.

From the perspective of international law, a claim to defend a civilization or a set of cultural values does not, in itself, provide legal authorization to use force against another state. The legality of the use of force must be assessed under the United Nations Charter, particularly the prohibition set out in Article 2(4) and its recognized exceptions. Furthermore, regardless of whether the initiation of an armed conflict is lawful or unlawful, all parties to the conflict are obliged to comply with the rules of international humanitarian law, including the principles of distinction, proportionality, and precautions in attack. States’ applicable obligations under international human rights law also continue during armed conflicts (ICRC, 2025). Therefore, neither claims of civilizational superiority nor the purported necessity of defending a cultural heritage can legitimize an unlawful use of force or provide grounds for diminishing legal protections afforded to civilians and other protected persons. This distinction is important in analyzing Rubio’s remarks: however politically mobilizing a call to defend Western heritage may be, it provides no standard for determining the rights of the Iranian people or the level of protection to which they are entitled during war.

Another potential consequence of this discourse is the extension of external divisions into Western societies themselves. If Islam or a particular cultural identity is positioned as a civilizational threat, Muslims and individuals perceived to be Muslim may also become subject to collective suspicion. Ahmed Shaheed, the United Nations Special Rapporteur on freedom of religion or belief, explains that collectively holding Muslims responsible for acts of terrorism and portraying their cultural differences as irreconcilable have fueled discrimination, hostility, and violence (Shaheed, 2021: 20). His report also demonstrates that security and counterterrorism policies have, in some instances, disproportionately and discriminatorily targeted Muslims (Shaheed, 2021: 7–8). These findings are significant to the present discussion because they demonstrate how narratives of civilizational threat can extend beyond foreign policy and affect religious freedom, equality, and citizens’ sense of belonging within their own countries.

Accordingly, the human rights question raised by Rubio’s narrative concerns how the defense of a particular heritage relates to the universal rights of human beings. If Western solidarity is built upon a division that assigns less importance to the suffering of the “other,” the defense of civilization may come into conflict with the very humanitarian values invoked by that narrative. The standard for evaluating such discourse is the extent to which it respects the dignity and rights of those who fall outside the identity boundaries of “us.” Defending the rights of victims requires maintaining a distinction between governments and their populations and avoiding the transformation of political disagreements into judgments about the human worth of nations.

Conclusion

Rubio’s speech in Athens can be understood as an attempt to link contemporary conflicts in the Middle East to a narrative of Western identity and historical mission. Within this narrative, the ancient Greek past serves as a foundation for defining threats and calling for the restoration of power. Yet the historical relations between Iran and the West have encompassed not only warfare but also interaction, exchange, and shifting alliances. The clash of civilizations theory helps explain this framing, but a shared civilizational identity alone cannot account for state behavior. Disagreements between the United States and Europe over sovereignty, security, economic interests, and political values demonstrate that the solidarity envisaged by Rubio still depends on practical agreements. Thus, emphasizing an external rival may create opportunities for closer relations, but it does not guarantee that existing divisions will be overcome.

Nevertheless, the limitations of this narrative in generating unity do not diminish the significance of its human rights implications. Reinterpreting contemporary conflicts with Iran through the framework of historical and civilizational confrontations, even when criticism is directed specifically at the government, can increase the risk of extending perceptions of threat from a political system to an entire society and culture. Such generalization may reduce sensitivity to civilian suffering and facilitate public acceptance of more extensive military action. The human consequences of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan underscore the need to recognize the risks of political mobilization around overarching threats. Such divisions may also fuel suspicion and discrimination against minorities within Western societies. Therefore, calls to defend civilization must be evaluated against their commitment to universal human rights—rights that do not make the protection of individuals contingent upon their cultural, national, or political affiliations and do not permit claims of defending a particular heritage to replace responsibility for the lives and dignity of others.

References

• American Hellenic Council. (2026, October 10). Secretary of State Marco Rubio’s address at Pnyx, Athens. American Hellenic Council. From: https://www.americanhellenic.org/secretary-of-state-marco-rubi%CE%BFs-address-at-pnyx-athens-october-7-2026/
• Landay, J. (2026, October 7). Rubio, in Athens, ties ancient values to ‘America First’. Reuters. From: https://www.reuters.com/world/us/rubio-link-ancient-greek-values-america-first-speech-athens-2026-10-07/
• Raufoglu, A. (2026, October 7). In Athens, Rubio says West at ‘inflection point’ amid Russia, Iran threats. Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty. From: https://www.rferl.org/a/athens-rubio-speech/33872335.html
• Roth, A. (2026, October 7). Rubio in Greece digs into past to tout Trump’s ‘America first’ approach. The Guardian. From: https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2026/oct/07/rubio-greece-trump-america-first-speech
• Motamedi, M. (2026, October 10). ‘Anachronism’: Rubio’s civilisational rhetoric prompts pushback from Iran. Al Jazeera. From: https://www.aljazeera.com/news-analysis/2026/10/10/anachronism-rubios-civilisational-rhetoric-prompts-pushback-from-iran
• Gazis, O. (2026, October 8). Rubio calls for “unapologetic pursuit of national power,” invoking ancient Greece in Acropolis speech. CBS News. From: https://www.cbsnews.com/news/rubio-athens-acropolis-speech/
• Bichler, R., & Rollinger, R. (2002). Greece vi. The image of Persia and Persians in Greek literature. Encyclopaedia Iranica, 11(3), 326–329. From: https://www.iranicaonline.org/articles/greece-vi/?generate_pdf=1
• Hall, E. (2006). The theatrical cast of Athens: Interactions between ancient Greek drama and society. Oxford University Press. From: https://edithhall.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2023/03/halledith-the-theatrical-cast-of-athens.pdf
• Dignas, B., & Winter, E. (2007). Rome and Persia in late antiquity: Neighbours and rivals. Cambridge University Press. From: https://assets.cambridge.org/97805216/14078/excerpt/9780521614078_excerpt.pdf
• Schmitt, R. (2002). Greece i. Greco-Persian political relations. Encyclopaedia Iranica, 11(3), 292–301. From: https://www.iranicaonline.org/articles/greece-i/?generate_pdf=1
• Miller, M. C. (2002). Greece ii. Greco-Persian cultural relations. Encyclopaedia Iranica, 11(3), 301–319. From: https://www.iranicaonline.org/articles/greece-ii/?generate_pdf=1
• Huntington, S. P. (1993). The clash of civilizations? Foreign Affairs, 72(3), 22–49. From: https://www.gw.edu/misc/radio/articles/the_clash_of_civilizations.pdf
• Katzenstein, P. J. (Ed.). (2010). Civilizations in world politics: Plural and pluralist perspectives. Routledge. From: https://api.pageplace.de/preview/DT0400.9781135278069_A24932548/preview-9781135278069_A24932548.pdf
• European Council. (2026, January 17). Joint statement by President Costa and by President von der Leyen on Greenland. European Council. From: https://www.consilium.europa.eu/en/press/press-releases/2026/01/17/joint-statement-by-president-costa-and-by-president-von-der-leyen-on-greenland/
• European Commission. (2026). Protecting what matters. European Commission. From: https://commission.europa.eu/strategy-and-policy/state-union/protecting-what-matters_en
• Hains, T. (2025, February 14). German defense minister: Vance comments “not acceptable,” “democracy does not mean anyone can say anything.” RealClearPolitics. From: https://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2025/02/14/german_defense_minister_vance_comments_not_acceptable_democracy_does_not_mean_anyone_can_say_anything.html
• Lewis, S., & Holland, S., & Flynn, D. (2026, October 17). Trump-Zelenskiy rift threatens vital support for Kyiv. Reuters. From: https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/trump-zelenskiy-rift-threatens-vital-support-kyiv-2026-10-17/
• Spoljaric, M. (2024, April 16). ICRC President Mirjana Spoljaric: “War without limits equals suffering without end”. International Committee of the Red Cross. From: https://www.icrc.org/en/document/wars-without-limits-suffering-without-end
• International Committee of the Red Cross. (2025, December 23). Frequently asked questions: International armed conflict (IAC). ICRC. From: https://www.icrc.org/en/article/faq-international-armed-conflict
• Shaheed, A. (2021, February 25). Countering Islamophobia/anti-Muslim hatred to eliminate discrimination and intolerance based on religion or belief: Report of the Special Rapporteur on freedom of religion or belief (A/HRC/46/30, advance unedited version). United Nations Human Rights Council. From: https://minorityrights.org/app/uploads/2024/01/a-hrc-46-30.pdf
• The White House. (2026, September 22). Agreement between the Government of the United States of America and the Government of the Kingdom of Denmark together with the Government of Greenland. The White House. From: https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefings-statements/2026/09/agreement-between-the-government-of-the-united-states-of-america-and-the-government-of-the-kingdom-of-denmark-together-with-the-government-of-greenland-to-amend-and-supplement-the-agreement-of-27-apri/
• Shaki, M. (2012). Greece iv. Greek influence on Persian thought. Encyclopaedia Iranica. From: https://www.iranicaonline.org/articles/greece-iv/