APPROACHING USE BY DATE

 

The protagonist is a senior marketing manager for clothing for a large commercial entity and this, apparently, for Woolworths makes her an expert on Greek Orthodox culture. The occasion is the company’s Easter promotional catalogue, a seasonal lift-out in which recipes and imagery are assembled to evoke a version of cultural celebration. The lift out checks all the required boxes of diversity, yet the culture it purports to honour is treated as vestige rather than presence, something relegated to the yiayia, who appears to be the only figure capable of plausibly observing the Lenten fast.

The rest of us hover somewhere between costume and consumption. We are wheeled out in calibrated doses, our icons flattened into patterns, our rituals translated into textures that can be folded, discounted, and cleared from racks by season’s end. Greek Orthodoxy is rendered as aesthetic rather than ontology, a palette of Pascal reds and golds suggestive of incense yet never permitting a discussion of its deeper meaning. Here, the fasting body is replaced by the curated body, sustained by visibility rather than abstinence.

Within this frame, Lent is reduced to a narrative device, a gesture towards gravity in a spread otherwise indistinguishable from any other. The yiayia is invoked as a guarantor of authenticity, her hands dusted with flour, her faith rendered immutable precisely because it is never taken seriously enough to threaten the dominant narrative. She is safely contained, her world bounded by the kitchen and her beliefs preserved through distance and exhibition rather than via engagement.

It is no incidental detail that the entire tableau in the promotional material is inhabited exclusively by women. Yiayia presides with serene, unselfconscious authority, a younger woman remains close at hand in practised assistance, while a child is ushered into the small disciplines of repetition. No male presence disturbs this pre-arrangement. Their absence of course, is not in any way neutral. Evidently, the ethnic Greek-Australian household of 2026 is imagined as a feminised space, sustained by women and confined to them, while men, (and with them long established stereotypes about the positioning and function of authority, intellect, and public agency), are displaced beyond the frame. The scene resolves into a decontextualised household, set apart from the social world in which it actually exists, and made to stand as representative of the culture as a whole. In that isolation, no structures of thought, leadership, or participation in the public sphere are permitted to appear, not because they are absent, but because they fall outside the terms of representation.

Accordingly, the ethnic woman, even as her ‘professional’ credentials are noted, is situated within a frame that permits no development. The domestic sphere is not simply her setting. It becomes her horizon. Authority remains bounded by the kitchen and its matriarchs, while identity is aligned with continuity, care, and inherited custom that is never subjected to change. The ethnic woman, of all generations is held at a single point in time, required to stand in for a past that must be preserved rather than reworked. Culture, in turn, is rendered static, its capacity for evolution set aside in favour of recognisable repetition.

Feminist and postcolonial scholarship has long observed this manoeuvre. As Chandra Talpade Mohanty has shown, the non-Western woman is repeatedly produced as a stable figure, bound to tradition and stripped of internal differentiation, while Gayatri Chakravorty Spivak identifies the manner in which such figures are spoken for within dominant discourses, appearing only in forms that confirm their subordination. The tableau in the promotional material conforms to this logic, with representation not merely depicting but actively constructing a narrative in which certain features are selected as legible, others excluded as irrelevant, producing a version of culture that can be recognised only in its most domesticated form.

Significantly, the effect is not produced by marketers alone. It is sustained by the participation of those being represented. Ethnic subjects often step into these roles willingly, often with a sense of pride, because the invitation is received as recognition rather than as framing. There is no need to question the good faith of the participants or the genuineness of their intentions. The form it takes, however, is decidedly not neutral, aligning instead with expectations of the dominant class already in place, in which ethnic culture appears in domesticated, familiar, and non-disruptive terms. The alignment of these participants is rarely conscious, reflecting instead something more deeply absorbed. Having been born and raised within an Anglophone order, ethnic communities internalise what will be accepted and what will not, and adjust accordingly. Expression is moderated, elements that might appear excessive or unintelligible are set aside, and culture is presented in a form that will be received the most palatably, without friction. Rather than presenting itself as constraint, it passes as appropriateness, as the natural way in which such a culture should comport itself in public.

In the process, the authority to interpret culture is displaced, so that meaning, rather than being generated within practice, becomes performance, assigned according to what can be recognised from outside it. Consequently, internal variation is flattened, with differences of region, class, theology, and practice collapsing into a single intelligible form. Crucially however, what is being reproduced are limits that have not been set by those who inhabit the culture itself. As George Vassilacopoulos and Toula Nicolacopoulou has argued, the migrant remains positioned as an eternal stranger and a subversive. Mainstream acceptance is extended within bounds and conditions, and it is often through these acts of accommodation that those bounds are preserved.

The promotional insert makes much of the yiayia’s cookbook, lovingly annotated and translated into English, as though the very act of translation were one of cultural rescue. To those of us inhabiting the culture, her barely literate scrawl and misspelled words are highly emotive and relatable, causing us to identify with her immediately. In the process, we run the risk of forgetting that Greek in this curated sphere, is permitted its afterlife only in glossaries and explanatory brackets, tolerated as opacity that must be clarified rather than inhabited. It is assumed to belong to those who arrived bearing it, carried across borders and relinquished upon settlement. The possibility that it persists, that it remains a living medium of thought among those born here, or indeed that it has a future is dismissed, or in the best case, left unconsidered.

There is a reason for this. Greek must remain confined to the first generation because its continuation unsettles the terms on which multiculturalism is extended. The presence of a living, transmitted language introduces into an Anglophone order a parallel system of meaning that does not require translation and a mode of thought that exceeds the linguistic monopoly through which that order understands itself. In this sense, Greek is not merely different. It is subversive, with evidence of its persistence suggesting that assimilation is neither complete nor inevitable, that another linguistic and cultural continuity can endure without yielding to the dominant one. Such continuity cannot be openly rejected, yet neither can it be encouraged. It is instead contained. Languages that do not circulate within the dominant economy are recoded as sentimental rather than functional, their value located in nostalgia. Within this framework, multiculturalism operates as toleration with an endpoint. Expression is permitted so long as it signals transition. Continuity beyond the migrant generation disrupts that expectation and is therefore recast as excess, as a failure to integrate. The language is accepted only on condition that it is in the process of disappearing.

Thus the Lenten fast, with all its discipline and defiance, becomes unintelligible within the frame that seeks to display it. It lingers on the margins of glossy pages, untranslated and therefore unthreatening, waiting patiently for a world that no longer expects to be changed by it. But by all means believe them when they tell you that the twists of the koulourakia, described helpfully as braided shapes, signify eternity. Of such explanations are myths sustained, and of such myths, cultures elegantly concluded.

DEAN KALIMNIOU

kalymnios@hotmail.com

First published in NKEE on Saturday 11 April 2026

BULGARIANS IN THE GREEK REVOLUTION

 

Even though Bulgarians have traditionally been considered enemies of Greece, from Byzantine times when they stood among the principal antagonists of Constantinople, through the rival national aspirations of the nineteenth century, the Balkan Wars and culminating in the harsh Bulgarian occupation of parts of northern Greece during the Second World War, this was not always the case. There existed a moment, prior to the consolidation of national categories, in which the distinction between Greek and Bulgarian had not yet acquired its later rigidity, and in which shared faith, shared subjection and shared expectation permitted forms of alignment that subsequent history would obscure. The Greek War of Independence belongs to that moment. It unfolded within a Balkan world still governed by the logic of the Orthodox oikoumene, within which participation preceded definition and allegiance was not yet confined within the limits of the nation. Within this framework, the ecclesiastical and cultural life of the Bulgarian lands remained deeply embedded in the Greek-speaking Orthodox world, with hierarchs drawn largely from the Phanariot milieu and Greek communities dispersed throughout the region, sustaining networks of language, education and political communication that facilitated the circulation of revolutionary ideas.

The presence of Bulgarians within the ranks of the Revolution is neither incidental nor marginal. Estimates place their number at approximately three thousand to four thousand, a figure that situates them among the most substantial non-Greek contingents in the war. They derived from Bulgarian settlements in Macedonia and Thrace, but also from the regions in modern day Bulgaria and came from all walks of life: peasants, haiduts, local chieftains and soldiers. Some had received Greek education. Others had served within Ottoman or Egyptian forces and brought with them the discipline of cavalry and infantry warfare. Their movement into the Greek struggle emerged from a convergence of Orthodox solidarity, anti-Ottoman resentment, personal ambition and the perception that the weakening of imperial authority in one region might herald its collapse in others.

The intellectual precondition for such convergence may be located in the revolutionary thought of Rigas Pheraios, in whose political imagination liberation transcended ethnic boundaries, extending across the Balkan peninsula to encompass a commonwealth of Christian peoples united in a civic order that would supplant Ottoman sovereignty. Within that imagined polity, the Bulgarian did not stand apart from the Greek. Bulgarian propensity for collaboration was also sharpened during the rebellions of the Pasha of Vidin, Osman Pazvantoğlu. Pazvantoğlu’s court functioned as a point of convergence for dissident actors across the Balkans, and his documented association with Rigas Pheraios, whom he assisted, inserted the Bulgarian lands into the same circuit of revolutionary anticipation that would later find expression in the events of 1821. The memory of resistance, the experience of fractured sovereignty and the presence of networks that transcended locality predisposed segments of the Bulgarian population to perceive the Greek Revolution as neither distant nor alien, but as the continuation of a process already underway. It comes as no surprise then, given this climate that many Bulgarians joined the Filiki Etaireia.

The northern theatre of the Revolution provides one of the earliest indications of Bulgarian participation. Stoyan Indzhe Voyvoda, born near Sliven, joined the campaign of Alexander Ypsilantis in the Danubian Principalities. A hajduk leader of considerable reputation, he commanded a body of approximately one thousand Balkan volunteers. Fighting at the battle of Sculeni in June 1821, he killed after refusing to withdraw. His presence situates Bulgarian participation at the very inception of the uprising, within a theatre that sought to ignite a general Balkan revolt.

Within the Macedonian and Thracian regions, attempts were made to extend the insurrection northwards. Spyridon Dzherov, from Achrida, associated with the Filiki Eteria, led an uprising near Monastiri in cooperation with local Greek elements and with initial ecclesiastical support. His effort was betrayed and he was captured and executed in the bazaar of the city in 1822. Sotir Damyanovich, from Monastiri, led a Bulgarian-speaking detachment during the uprising of 1822, fighting at Olympus and Chalkidiki, and participating in the defence of Kassandra. After the suppression of these movements he moved southwards and continued the struggle under Greek commanders, including Georgios Karaiskakis, later serving under Kapodistrias.

The integration of Bulgarian fighters into the main theatres of the Revolution becomes more evident in the Peloponnese and Central Greece. Hadji Hristo Bulgarin stands at the centre of this process. Originally from Sliven, prior to joining the Revolution he had served in the cavalry of Muhammad Ali of Egypt, acquiring experience within the Ottoman military system. In 1821 he defected and entered the service of Theodoros Kolokotronis. Leading a corps of Bulgarian volunteers during the siege of Tripolitsa, he contributed to the fall of a city whose capture marked a decisive moment in the war. Later, he distinguished himself at Dervenakia in July 1822, where the Ottoman army suffered a devastating defeat. His campaigns extended into Central Greece, including Thermopylae and Boeotia. In May 1824 he was promoted to general and became the first commander of Greek cavalry. Captured at Navarino in 1827, he was later released following Allied intervention. Bulgarin’s career situates a Bulgarian officer within the highest levels of the revolutionary military hierarchy and demonstrates that authority within the insurgent army followed competence rather than origin. Another four Bulgarian participants in the Greek Revolution would be elevated to the rank of general.

Hatzi Stefanos Bulgaris, identified as Bulgarian, served as a captain under Kolokotronis and commanded a cavalry unit of one hundred volunteers. He fought in Central Greece, including Thermopylae and Livadeia, and later participated in the expedition to Lebanon under Hatzichristos Dalianis in the mid-1820s, leading a contingent of Bulgarian horsemen beyond the immediate geography of the Revolution. The presence of such figures indicates that Bulgarian participation was not confined to isolated engagements. It extended across multiple theatres and into operations that exceeded the territorial limits of the Greek mainland.

At the level of unit commanders and rank and file fighters, the density of Bulgarian participation becomes even more apparent. Anastas, or Atanas Bulgarin, from Maleshevo served as a chiliarch under Hadji Hristo in the Peloponnese. He survived the fall of Neokastro at Methoni, escaping as one of the first from a position that collapsed under pressure, and later fought at the siege of Nafplio and at Sphacteria, where his detachment was almost entirely destroyed. Dimo Nikolov Bulgarin, from Drama, began as an infantryman under Hadji Hristo and later commanded a group of twenty-five men. He fought throughout the war in the Peloponnese, was wounded, and later testified that he had followed his commander into every battle. Nikolaos Voulgaris, from Serres, fought under Nikitaras at Nafplio, Corinth and Dervenakia, later under Hadji Hristo, and subsequently under Georgios Karaiskakis in Athens and Piraeus, where his brother was killed. After the war he remained in Greece.

Nikola Atanas Bulgarin, from Edessa, joined the Revolution with his family and maintained at his own expense a detachment of six soldiers. He fought at Missolonghi, at Trikeri and in multiple engagements in the Peloponnese, including Tripolitsa and Argos. At Kastelli he lost his left eye. Stavros Ioannou Bulgarin, from Achrida, left his homeland in 1821 and fought under Nikitaras, Odysseas Androutsos and Gennaios Kolokotronis. He took part in engagements at Stilida, Agia Marina, Ipati, Levadia and Dervenakia, was wounded fighting the forces of Dramali, later fihting at Karystos and Haidari. By the mid-nineteenth century he described himself as an aged veteran and former centurion. Stoyan Marko Bulgarin, served under Angel Gatzo, first as a standard bearer and then as a commander. He fought in the uprising at Drama, survived its fall, and later took part in the battle of Plaka against Omer Vrioni and at Dervenakia. In 1823 he led men at Trikeri and participated in naval engagements near Skiathos. Philip Bulgarin, who joined the struggle in 1822, fought at Aspropotamos and Dragamesto, later participated in campaigns in Crete and Carystos, and was present in battles around Athens and Nafpaktos. After the war he settled in Patras and petitioned for recognition as a veteran.

Taken together, these biographies disclose a pattern of sustained and widespread engagement. Bulgarians appear across the principal theatres of the war, under the command of leading Greek figures, participating in decisive battles, enduring wounds, and, in many cases, entering a post-war existence marked by poverty and neglect. Their presence cannot be reduced to a symbolic gesture of solidarity. It constitutes a material contribution to the conduct of the Revolution.

The subsequent history of Greek and Bulgarian relations, shaped by competing national projects and territorial conflicts, has obscured this earlier moment of alignment. The same regions from which these men came would later become zones of contestation. The same populations that once participated in a shared insurrection would be reconfigured within opposing national narratives. Yet the archival record preserves a different memory. It records the presence of Bulgarians at Tripolitsa, at Dervenakia, at Nafplio, and at Messolongi, under key leaders such as Kolokotronis, Karaiskakis and Androutsos.

The recovery of these figures restores to the history of the Greek Revolution a dimension that has long remained in the margins. Rather than altering the Revolution’s significance as the foundation of the modern Greek state, it situates that event within a broader Balkan context and reveals a moment in which the boundaries that would later divide were still permeable. In that moment, Bulgarians marched and fought alongside Greeks, united by a common faith and a shared expectation that the empire of oppression under which they lived might give way. The later memory of antagonism cannot efface that earlier convergence. It remains inscribed within the record, awaiting recognition within a more complete account of the past.

DEAN KALIMNIOU

kalymnios@hotmail.com

First published in NKEE on Saturday 4 April 2026

PARADING LOYALTY: DIASPORA, DISPLAY AND THE RECODING OF GREEK NATIONAL DAY

 

In recent years, the commemorative grammar of Greek National Day within the diaspora has undergone a subtle yet profound mutation over the course of the years. What once functioned as a ritual of historical recollection, anchored in the violent and improbable renascence of a subjugated people, now increasingly performs another function altogether: the demonstration of loyalty to the host polity. The symbolic language of liberation may persist, yet its structure has been reshaped, reframed, and subordinated to a parallel narrative in which Greek independence becomes intelligible primarily through its capacity to affirm the ideological priorities of the dominant culture.

Such a transformation arises from structural conditions long identified within postcolonial thought. The subaltern speaks within systems that determine in advance the limits of intelligibility. Expression is permitted, yet it must take a form that can be recognised, processed, and sanctioned. The Greek diaspora, particularly in Anglophone settler societies, occupies precisely such a position. Visibility is granted within boundaries and celebration is encouraged within a framework that reinforces the myths of the host nation.

In visual form, the promotional image for the Greek Independence Day Parade in New York condenses this process into a single visual field. Its aesthetic announces itself as synthetic, an AI-generated tableau in which historical verisimilitude yields to symbolic ordering. The American flag occupies the central axis of the composition, rendered large, vivid, and dominant, establishing visual sovereignty. The Greek flag appears diminished, reduced in scale and relegated to a secondary position, functioning as an accessory rather than as a foundational symbol. A hierarchy of importance is immediately established.

At this point, this becomes myth in the sense articulated by Roland Barthes: a system of signification that naturalises ideology. The composition transforms a contingent political arrangement into an apparently self-evident truth. American liberty emerges as the origin point of legitimate freedom. Greek independence appears as a subsequent articulation within that already established moral universe. It is the scale of the flags performs this hierarchy.

In textual form, the accompanying slogan reinforces this visual logic. “Bridging Revolutions: 250 Years of American Liberty and 205 Years of Hellenic Independence” establishes a temporal asymmetry that carries ideological weight. The Greek Revolution is relocated within a timeline that is not its own, interpreted through a chronology that assigns precedence to another narrative of freedom. Dipesh Chakrabarty’s call to provincialise dominant histories finds an inverse expression here. Greek history is itself provincialised, rendered secondary within an American temporal frame.

Equally, the synthetic quality of the image intensifies this effect. AI generation signals a departure from historical memory into the domain of constructed myth, whether the past is not recalled but assembled. The resulting tableau produces a usable past, one that affirms present alignments.

Over time, such re-inscription operates through internalisation as much as imposition. Diasporic communities acquire fluency in the codes through which recognition is granted. They learn to narrate their history in a language that resonates with the dominant culture. Democracy, liberty, and shared values become the operative vocabulary. These terms carry legitimacy but also delimit interpretation. The revolution ceases to function as an object of inquiry, becoming instead, a symbolic resource, mobilised within an already authorised discourse.

Within Australia, a comparable dynamic unfolds, albeit with a slower and more uneven trajectory. The emblem of the Victorian Council for Greek National Day begins with the Australian flag, positioned as the primary signifier of belonging. This occurs despite the Council’s stated purpose, which is to commemorate the 25th of March as the day on which Greece celebrates its independence, history, and cultural heritage. The mission statement contains no reference to Australia. Nevertheless, the symbolic apparatus foregrounds it, establishing the interpretative horizon within which Greek identity is presented.

At the same time, traces of resistance remain visible. Promotional material depicting Evzones marching beneath a Greek flag preserves a degree of historical continuity. The Greek flag retains its centrality within that imagery. Its presence anchors the representation in a recognisable narrative of national memory, indicating that the process of recoding remains incomplete. The impulse toward self-representation persists, even as it operates within increasingly regulated environments.

Beyond symbolism, such environments impose constraints that extend further. The relocation of the Melbourne parade from the Shrine of Remembrance to Birdwood Avenue signals a broader process of marginalisation. A site once associated with national commemoration is no longer available to non-Anglo Australians. Instead the event unfolds at the edge of that space, both geographically and symbolically. In this way, the Shrine functions as a curated apparatus of sovereign memory, a lieu de mémoire in Pierre Nora’s sense, within which the state determines the forms and limits of legitimate remembrance. Speech within that space is governed. Reports that speakers at the invitation-only wreath laying ceremony conducted their before the commencement of the parade, are directed to confine their remarks to themes of Greek–Australian friendship illustrate the mechanisms through which expression is channelled and commemoration is redirected.

As a result, this redirection produces a transformation in the nature of speech itself. Accoding to Gayatri Spivak’s formulation of the subaltern condition, speech is mediated through structures that define its permissible content. Our community thus articulates its presence through a vocabulary that has been pre-approved. And expressions that foreground conflict, rupture, or independent interpretative frameworks encounter resistance at the level of form.

In this context, the historical substance of the Greek Revolution intensifies the significance of this restriction. The revolution was marked by violence, internal division, and geopolitical entanglement. Its narrative contains contestation as much as cohesion. Within diasporic commemoration, these elements recede. The emphasis shifts toward harmony, continuity, and shared values. Conflict is displaced and the resulting narrative is sanitised, rendered compatible with the expectations of the host polity.

Internally, the effect extends into the life of the community. Organisers operate within a matrix of financial obligations, regulatory requirements, and institutional expectations. Permits, insurance frameworks, public liability conditions, and funding structures shape the field within which events can occur in the dominant culture’s public domain. Where compliance becomes materially incentivised, the state does not require overt censorship as it structures the conditions under which only compliant expression remains viable.

Within this matrix, anticipatory conformity emerges as a rational response. Organisers and participants calibrate their actions in advance. They perform what they understand will be acceptable. Expression becomes pre-emptive and the event is scripted before it occurs, giving rise to a spectacle that reflects constraint as much as commemoration.

At a theoretical level, the analysis advanced by George Vassilacopoulos and Toula Nicolacopoulou illuminates the deeper structure of this condition. In From Foreigner to Citizen: Greek Migrants and Social Change in White Australia 1897–2000, they identify the paradox through which migrant communities are encouraged to establish their own institutions while the terms of that establishment are externally regulated. They extend this analysis by identifying the ontopathology of the ruling group as a constitutive factor. The regulation of migrant expression emerges from a deeper need to stabilise a settler society founded upon dispossession. Authority is reaffirmed through the management of difference. By positioning itself as arbiter of acceptable cultural forms, the state legitimises its own historical narrative. Migrant communities are incorporated into this process as regulated participants. They are included within the national imaginary while remaining subject to its disciplinary structures.

From this, a condition of managed inclusion is produced. The community appears within public space and its presence is structured but it must continually demonstrate its alignment with the values of the host society. Acceptance depends upon the ongoing performance of loyalty. The migrant subject becomes, in Vassilacopoulos’ formulation, an eternal foreigner, required to prove what cannot be finally secured and thus an eternal subversive.

Within this setting, Greek National Day becomes a site at which these dynamics converge. The language of celebration is shaped by the need to secure recognition. Democracy and liberty are invoked as shared values, functioning as symbolic currency and facilitating participation within the host nation’s narrative. Simultaneously, they serve to displace the particularities of Greek historical experience, where the revolution is framed in a vocabulary that carries legitimacy within the dominant context.

Spatially, the dimension of diasporic commemoration underscores these dynamics. In New York, the parade occupies a central public space, visible to a broad audience. The spectacle engages the wider city, even as it reproduces a hierarchical narrative. In Melbourne, the parade proceeds along the margins, unfolding away from principal sites of congregation, with the audience consisting largely of participants themselves. The event thus becomes reflexive, performed for the community, within a space that reflects its constrained position.

In this form, the resulting spectacle takes on the character of a pantomime, in which the forms of commemoration are preserved while their content is quietly regulated, and the parade advances within fixed boundaries as participants don the foustanella and tsarouhia, enact the gestures of historical memory, and disperse once the ritual concludes, affirming continuity even as the limits imposed upon it remain visible.

What follows from this process is that any sustained engagement with the meaning of the Greek Revolution itself recedes, which remains available as a source of inquiry into the relationship between past and present, into the unfinished character of liberation, and into its possible resonance within contemporary struggles, yet is instead confined to a narrow and sanctioned vocabulary that limits interpretation in advance. Within these conditions, autonomy is constrained by design, as the incentives for conformity and the consequences of deviation operate with sufficient force to shape expression before it occurs, even while residual forms of resistance persist in the continued presence of symbols, memory, and communal practice. The result is a paradox that remains unresolved, in which a revolution grounded in freedom is commemorated within structures that regulate its expression, allowing its forms to endure while diminishing its political force.

Nonetheless, the event still holds the possibility of reflection, of returning to 1821 as an open question rather than a settled emblem, and of situating that struggle within a wider horizon of unfinished liberation. Realising that possibility requires a departure from sanctioned language and a willingness to speak beyond expectation, even as the structures identified by Vassilacopoulos and Nicolacopoulou continue to organise the limits of expression and reward conformity. Yet the persistence of symbols, memory, and historical reference indicates that recoding has not achieved closure. The question, then, is whether the community will reclaim its narrative or continue to rehearse it within prescribed terms, allowing the memory of liberation to endure in form while remaining subordinate in meaning.

DEAN KALIMNIOU

kalymnios@hotmail.com

First published in NKEE on Saturday 28 March 2026.

FROM THERMOPYLAE TO TEHRAN: THE GEOGRAPHY OF AN ANCIENT RIVALRY

 

The missiles exchanged between the United States and Iran appear to belong entirely to the technological imagination of the modern age. Aircraft carriers patrol the Persian Gulf, ballistic missiles arc across the night sky, and commentators debate deterrence in the vocabulary of nuclear strategy and international relations theory. The confrontation between Washington and Tehran nonetheless, belongs to a geopolitical pattern far older than the technologies through which it now manifests itself. Along the ancient corridor that stretches from the Aegean littoral across the Anatolian plateau toward the plains of Mesopotamia, rival political systems have confronted one another for more than two millennia. As such, the present conflict emerges as the most recent expression of a strategic rivalry that has shaped the eastern Mediterranean and the Iranian plateau since antiquity, a rivalry in which the Greek world, in its various historical incarnations, repeatedly encountered the imperial power of Persia.

An appreciation of this continuity lies in the deeper structures that shape political behaviour across centuries. Fernand Braudel described such structures as belonging to the longue durée, the slow rhythm of history in which geography, climate, and patterns of settlement exert subtle dominion over human affairs. Dynasties and regimes may collapse with startling speed, but strategic landscapes persist with stubborn durability. The corridor between the Mediterranean basin and the Iranian plateau constitutes one of the great geopolitical hinges of Eurasia, a landscape where the maritime world of the Aegean encounters the continental interior of Asia. On its western side developed a civilisation of cities whose orientation toward the sea fostered trade, navigation, and a political culture grounded in civic autonomy. On its eastern side arose expansive imperial formations organised around territorial administration, cavalry warfare, and bureaucratic hierarchy. These contrasting political ecologies pressed against one another along the Anatolian frontier with relentless regularity.

The first dramatic manifestation of this tension occurred during the Persian invasions of Greece in the early fifth century before Christ. The empire founded by Cyrus and extended by Darius had already incorporated the Greek cities of Asia Minor into its administrative system, and the Ionian revolt against Persian authority provoked a campaign of imperial retribution. Herodotus recounts these events in the earliest surviving masterpiece of historical prose, describing how the Persian kings sought to extend their dominion across the Aegean and impose imperial order upon the fiercely independent communities of mainland Greece. The political map of the Greek world at this moment presented a spectacle of fragmentation, with Athens and Sparta regarding one another with suspicion, while Corinth, Thebes, and numerous smaller poleis pursued their rivalries with passionate determination. Persia thus confronted a landscape whose disunity appeared to promise easy conquest.

The Persian invasions produced a transformation whose logic later found expression in the realist tradition of political thought. Faced with overwhelming imperial power, the Greek cities suspended their quarrels and formed a defensive coalition. The Hellenic League arose albeit out of necessity, rather than sentiment. Thucydides, reflecting upon the ruthless dynamics of interstate competition, observed that relations between powers ultimately rest upon capacity rather than moral aspiration. In the stark language of the Melian Dialogue, the strong exercise their power where they can, while the weak accommodate themselves to necessity. Greek statesmen recognised that isolation meant subjugation. Cooperation, however, offered survival.

The victories that followed revealed the strategic consequences of this alignment. At Salamis the Athenian commander Themistocles persuaded the allied fleet to engage the Persian navy within the narrow straits between the island and the Attic coast. The confined waters neutralised the numerical superiority of the Persian fleet. Greek triremes rammed and manoeuvred within a maritime corridor where discipline and seamanship determined the outcome. Aeschylus, who fought in the battle and later commemorated the event in his tragedy Persians, portrayed the defeat of Xerxes as the moment when imperial arrogance encountered the stubborn autonomy of the Greek polis. Thermopylae offered a parallel demonstration on land. There a narrow mountain pass compressed the invading army into a constricted space where vast numbers could not deploy effectively. Geography revealed its capacity to transform weakness into advantage.

Modern military theorists describe such engagements as examples of asymmetric strategy. The weaker combatant selects terrain and circumstances that diminish the advantages of the stronger adversary. Iranian strategic thinking displays a similar awareness of geographical leverage. The Strait of Hormuz, through which a large proportion of the world’s energy supply must pass, forms a maritime bottleneck whose proximity to Iranian territory creates opportunities for disruption. Mines, missiles, and fast attack vessels transform narrow waters into instruments of strategic pressure. The technologies may differ dramatically from those of antiquity but the underlying logic of geography remains strikingly familiar.

Persian imperial policy during the classical period was also notable in that it demonstrated an appreciation for indirect influence. Military invasion represented only one element within a broader strategic repertoire, the Persian rulers recognising that the turbulent politics of the Greek world could be shaped through diplomacy and financial patronage. During the Peloponnesian War Persian subsidies helped finance the construction of Spartan fleets capable of challenging Athenian naval supremacy. Greek civil conflict thus intersected with Persian imperial calculations, its empire achieving strategic objectives through the manipulation of rivalries within the Greek political system. Such policy anticipates the dynamics of proxy conflict that characterise the contemporary Middle East, where regional struggles frequently unfold through local actors whose ambitions intersect with the interests of larger powers, in Syria, Lebanon, Iraq, Yemen and beyond, causing untold misery.

The disappearance of classical Greece did not terminate the strategic encounter between the Mediterranean and the Iranian plateau. Alexander the Great shattered the Achaemenid Empire in a series of campaigns that carried Macedonian armies from Asia Minor to the frontiers of India. Xenophon had earlier revealed to Greek readers, through the narrative of the Anabasis, the vulnerabilities that lay within the Persian imperial structure: the structural vulnerabilities of the Persian imperial system: the political fragmentation of the satrapal provinces, the reliance upon mercenary forces, and the difficulty of defending an empire stretched across enormous distances. Yet the destruction of the Achaemenid state altered the political configuration of the frontier rather than eliminating the rivalry itself. Hellenistic monarchies may have ruled territories that had once formed the core of Persian imperial authority, but the strategic corridor between the Mediterranean and the Iranian interior continued to generate conflict between successor states. Rome eventually absorbed these territories and inherited the same geopolitical dilemma. Roman legions confronted Parthian and later Sasanian forces across the plains of Mesopotamia and the highlands of Armenia. Languages changed, religions evolved, and dynasties disappeared, while the strategic landscape remained constant.

Byzantium went on to sustain this ancient rivalry with Persia for centuries, the conflict reaching its most dramatic intensity during the reign of the emperor Heraclius in the early seventh century. The Sasanian ruler Khosrow II launched a series of campaigns that overwhelmed Byzantine defences with astonishing speed. Syria and Egypt fell to Persian armies. Jerusalem itself was captured, and the relic of the True Cross was carried away from the Holy City as a trophy of conquest, an event sent shockwaves through the Christian world, transforming a geopolitical conflict into a civilisational crisis. Heraclius responded with a strategy whose audacity astonished contemporaries. Instead of defending the shrinking frontiers of his empire, he carried the war into the Persian heartland. Byzantine armies marched across the Caucasus and descended into the Iranian interior, striking at the logistical foundations of the Sasanian state. In 627 Heraclius defeated the Persian army near Nineveh, precipitating the collapse of Khosrow’s regime.

Heraclius’ campaign stands among the most daring counteroffensives in military history. It also revealed the tragic logic of prolonged imperial rivalry. Decades of warfare had drained the economic and institutional strength of both empires. Their armies were exhausted, their treasuries depleted, and their political systems fragile. Within a few years Arab armies emerging from the Arabian Peninsula swept across the same territories that Byzantium and Persia had contested for generations. Persia vanished from the map of the Near East and Byzantium survived only by retreating westward toward Anatolia and the Balkans. Historians later described this phenomenon as imperial overstretch. Prolonged rivalry between great powers can erode the very foundations upon which their strength depends.

The confrontation between the United States and Iran unfolds within a technological environment vastly different from that of antiquity. Nuclear deterrence, cyber warfare, and globalised financial systems shape the instruments through which power now operates. The structural patterns that governed earlier encounters between the Mediterranean and the Iranian plateau remain recognisable. Geography continues to impose its discipline upon strategy. Just as the narrow waters of Salamis once neutralised the numerical advantage of the Persian fleet, the confined passage of the Strait of Hormuz transforms maritime geography into a lever of political pressure. Coalition politics likewise persists as a determining force. The Greek poleis that united against Xerxes find their distant analogue in the alliance structures through which contemporary power is organised in the Middle East. Indirect conflict also echoes ancient precedent. Persian gold once flowed into Spartan treasuries during the Peloponnesian War, shaping Greek rivalries without the presence of Persian armies on the battlefield. Modern competition between Washington and Tehran frequently unfolds through regional actors whose struggles intersect with the interests of larger powers, from Hezbollah in Lebanon and Hamas in Gaza to the militias of Iraq’s Popular Mobilization Forces and the Houthi movement in Yemen while regional powers aligned with Washington, including Israel, Saudi Arabia and the Gulf monarchies, form a countervailing coalition reminiscent of the alliances that once gathered against Xerxes. The names of the participants have changed and the weapons they wield would astonish ancient strategists, yet the deeper strategic logic continues to move with a rhythm that historians of the Persian frontier would recognise immediately.

Narrative and memory add another layer to this enduring encounter. Herodotus framed the Greek resistance to Persia as a defence of freedom against imperial domination, a narrative that entered the intellectual bloodstream of Western civilisation. Iranian historical consciousness preserves its own traditions of resistance to foreign interference and cultural subjugation. Scholars of international relations emphasise that states act within frameworks of identity as well as calculations of material power. Historical memory shapes the political imagination through which societies interpret the present.

Viewed through the long perspective of history, the conflict between the United States and Iran appears as the latest chapter in a geopolitical drama rooted in the landscapes of the Near East. The corridor between the Mediterranean and the Iranian plateau has served for millennia as a zone where maritime coalitions encounter continental empires. Empires may pass across the stage of history, technologies evolve, and ideologies transform themselves in response to changing circumstances, but geography endures. The Greeks who once confronted the armies of Xerxes could not have imagined aircraft carriers cruising the Persian Gulf or missiles streaking across the sky above the Strait of Hormuz. They would nevertheless have recognised the deeper logic of the confrontation. The structures of rivalry that shaped their world continue to echo across the centuries, a reminder that the landscapes of the Near East retain the imprint of rivalries that successive empires, to their folly, imagine to be new.

DEAN KALIMNIOU

kalymnios@hotmail.com

First published in NKEE on Saturday 21 March 2026