In times of crisis, Iran’s leaders do not talk about the future but about eternity. As military pressure mounts, they use not policy or strategy but millennia: a “6,000-year-old” civilization that has outlasted the empire and will defeat its current enemies.
The message is meant to show strength. But it also hides a deeper paradox. Iran is a country that claims to think in many centuries it often rules as if it cannot see beyond the next crisis.
In the past three weeks, Iran’s leaders have turned back to the familiar language of historic tolerance. President Masoud Pezeshkian he announced that Iran is “the heir to a civilization at least 6,000 years old,” emphasizing that “(a) invaders have come and gone; Iran has endured.” Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi likewise explained Iran as “a nation with a rich culture stemming from 7000 years of civilization,” warning that such a country cannot be intimidated by external threats. Senior adviser Ali Larijani, who was killed on March 17, prepared the confrontation in the same words, vowing that Iran will defend its “(6,000 years)” civilization and reminding enemies that powers greater than the United States have already failed to eliminate the Iranian nation.
But the request of the Islamic Republic of the time of civilization is not strategic depth but its absence.
These statements are not just rhetorical flourishes. They stem from a long-standing narrative in Iran’s political culture that makes the country less of a nation than a civilization whose continuity transcends political regimes. Empires have risen and fallen around Iran—Alexander the Great, the Arabs, the Mongols—but the country took its conquerors and moved on. Yet the conditions that attract this history of endurance are often dominated by short-term thinking. It speaks in a millennial idiom but acts like there is no tomorrow.
The call for historical tolerance has deep roots in Iran’s political culture. The narrative is based on well-known historical events. When the Mongols conquered Persia in the 13th century, they destroyed cities and destroyed political power. Yet within generations, the conquerors themselves were dominated by Persian culture, absorbing the customs, literature, and culture of the Iranian court. For many Iranians, the story points to a broader pattern: The invaders may rule Iran for a while, but in the end, they are swallowed up by the civilization they sought to conquer.
Contemporary Iranian governments have repeatedly promoted this narrative. The Pahlavi dynasty celebrated the 2,500th anniversary of the Persian Empire in 1971, presenting modern Iran as the successor to the Achaemenid Empire founded by Cyrus the Great. The Islamic Republic initially rejected this imperial vision, preferring the language of Shiite revolutionary history. In the 1980s, the regime’s symbolic world revolved around Karbala, martyrdom, and revolutionary struggles against oppression.
However, over time, these ideological boundaries softened. As revolutionary fervor faded and the regime’s social legitimacy came under strain, Iran’s pre-Islamic past quietly returned to official discourse. Ancient kings accused of being symbols of pagan tyranny reappeared as symbols of national continuity. References to Persian civilization began to accompany the Islamic vocabulary of the regime.
This combination is especially noticeable during combat. While the legitimacy of the Islamic Republic itself appears weak, leaders rely more on the deep reserves of Iranian civilizational identity. The message is vague but strong: Governments may come and go, but Iran endures.
In recent years, this shift has taken a real visual shape. Cultural institutions linked to the state and the media have revived images drawn from Sasanian imperial imagery, particularly Shapur I’s pleasure in capturing the Roman Emperor Valerian. In modern interpretations circulating in informal settings, modern antagonists are placed in the role of Valerian.
Following the Israeli attack in June 2025, Iranian officials unveiled a statue in Tehran depicting the Sasanian emperor Shapur I standing over the kneeling Roman emperor Valerian. Historical as it is, the image—accompanied by the slogan “you shall bend your knees again”—invited an unmistakable modern reading, with present-day adversaries clearly placed in Valerian’s place. Such images do more than process historical memory; it wants to enter the Islamic Republic in the line of imperial conquest, depicting the conflicts existing in the ancient artistic template.
This symbolic strategy has extended beyond isolated images. Over the past two years, Iranian officials and allied media have increasingly used pre-Islamic motifs in public messages. References to Cyrus, Darius the Great, and the glory of ancient Persia are now seen alongside revolutionary slogans. Even as the regime maintains its Islamic ideology, it is increasingly drawing on Persian nationalism, appealing to a broader and less ideological public. Change does not reflect confidence but change: the recognition that revolutionary Islam alone no longer commands the emotional loyalty it once had.
However, these words have had an impact beyond Iran itself. The language of ancient civilizations has been easily adopted, and often promoted, by Western media and policy analysis. Scholars and analysts frequently interpret Iranian behavior through the lens of historical continuity, portraying it as a state guided by deep strategic logic.
Vali Nasr, for example, has argued that Iran has a “strategy rooted in centuries-old imperial lust, extreme insecurity.” According to Nasr, one should return at least 600 yearsfor the Safavid period, since “there are also basic facts about history, past history, and the actual geographical and political situation.” Ray Takeyh, writing about the Islamic Republic, similarly noted that “Iranians for generations have been imbued with a unique sense of their history, the splendor of their civilization, and the power of their famous empires.” However, once translated into political analysis, these perspectives risk turning historical depth into evidence of strategic coherence. What appears to be a long-term structure may actually be a back-order of policies that are often refined, reactive, and shaped by internal divisions.
The result is not small. Millennials’ plea for resilience doesn’t just mean resilience—it means strategy. By embedding the Islamic Republic into lasting for a long time of Iranian civilization, officials portray a government guided by patience, solidarity, and a long-term vision. The suggestion, often hidden but widely accepted, is that Iran is operating according to a sound strategy consistent with ancient civilizations.
The truth is more divided. Few examples illustrate this more clearly than environmental policy. Iran today faces one of the most severe ecological conflicts in the world. Chronic water scarcity, collapsing aquifers, and widespread desertification have turned large parts of the country into environmental disaster zones. Large lakes, including Lake Urmia, have declined significantly over the past two decades. Many of these problems stem not only from natural scarcity but from decades of poorly coordinated dam construction. unsustainable agricultural policiesand the relentless expansion of water-intensive industries.
Energy policy tells a similar story. Despite having the world’s largest reserves of oil and natural gas, Iran regularly struggles with domestic fuel and electricity shortages. Too many subsidies encourage wasteful spending, while aging infrastructure and underinvestment reduce efficiency in the energy sector.
Economics reflects similar short-term structural assumptions. International sanctions have undoubtedly contributed to Iran’s economic decline, but the failure of domestic governance remains significant. The decision is divided into overlapping institutions including the presidency, parliament, clerical bodies, the Office of the Supreme Leader, and the Revolutionary Guards. Policies often change in response to political competition and immediate pressures, making effective long-term planning very difficult.
Iran’s regional strategy reflects similar tensions. Over the past two decades, Tehran has built an extensive network of allied militias and political movements in the Middle East. This has provided strategic access—but at a high cost. The aggressive use of these networks has exacerbated regional animosity and reinforced perceptions of Iran as a destabilizing force.
The paradox is especially visible in the current confrontation with the United States and Israel. Iranian officials are framing the conflict as part of a historic struggle in which Iran’s enemies will finally discover the futility of resisting a civilization that has endured for millennia. However, the policies followed by the Islamic Republic – military escalation in many fields and worsening relations with neighboring countries – risk leaving the country more isolated once the current crisis subsides.
Why does the regime that encourages the sustainability of civilization often rule with short-sightedness? Part of the answer lies in the political structure of the Islamic Republic itself. Power is divided into institutions whose interests often diverge. In such a system, immediate political vitality tends to overcome long-term national planning.
But there is also a deeper ideological logic at work. Since 1979, the Islamic Republic has shown itself as a revolutionary nation engaged in a permanent struggle against external enemies. Within this worldview, conflicts are not disturbances but a normal state of political life. Living in the moment therefore becomes a top priority.
The language of millennial tolerance performs an important political function in this context. It assures the people that despite the difficulties, the nation itself will endure.
Invoking the patience of Iran’s past can provide reassurance in difficult times. But history has a slightly comforting lesson: Civilizations endure precisely because they outlive the states that claim to embody them. The language of perpetuity of the Islamic Republic predicts permanence, but does not provide any such guarantee. Iran is likely to tolerate it. Whether this administration will survive is a different question—and one that history has answered many times before.
