A perfectly gracious response. My bad if I've misunderstood what you've written- I am an amateur when it comes to South Asian history, but have an interest in and fondness for those cultures. As an aside, I wouldn't characterize my claims as strongly or sweepingly as you have, but we've probably covered all that needs to be as suggested in your summation, and I'm happy to leave it at that.

You think I'm incredibly arrogant, and too doe-eyed to understand that wars on the borders of ancient empires are evidence of transcendental mistrust/antipathy between what have been known for at least a dozen generations as 'the West' and planet Persia, which especially animates the history of the world. Check.

You, on the other hand, through, amongst other things, your profound grasp of commonality between polytheistic religions of the near east and sanskrit linguistics, know far more about the salience of this 3000 year old transcendental conflict. Check.

You're astonished that I had the temerity to cite the breadth of the Mogul empire, and the significant influence of Persian culture on it, as historical allegory to Roman spreading of Greek culture, and think that pointing to the Aryan migration effectively rebuts this point. Check.

Thermopylae and the Greco-Persian Wars are the perfect example of the Greek's demonization of Persia, notwithstanding the Greek sources of these conflicts lionizing of historical Persian figures. Cyrus the Great does not count because his reception doesn't fit the theory, but Xerxes does, and we all know that the Greeks defended their territory and therefore demonized Persians. Check.

The Egyptians unequivocally admired the Persians, which explains their series of revolts against their rule. Even if Egyptian admiration were less than unequivocal, it would have nothing to do with the current rivalry between Iran and its neighbors in the region, or between Sunni and Shia branches of Islam. In both senses the historical record corroborates the uniqueness of the historical antipathy between Persia and the West. Check.

Crusades are just another example of the unique proclivity of the West for religious and culturally inspired/legitimated military expansion. Check.

Did I leave anything out? I humbly apologize for not making the point that the Moguls were the most notable Persian influence on Persian culture, or even that they were a notable influence on Persian culture, thus requiring you to construct the strawman from whole cloth. Very unsportsmanlike of me. I retreat before your expertise. By all means, let's assume that my comment had anything to do with what our policy should be vis a vis Iran despite the fact I explicitly foreswore such an analytical framework.

If you say so. If dismissing certain periods of antiquity for 'more representative' others is as much substantiation as you offer to support your claim that the Greeks 'demonized' the Persians, that's about the only way I can think of to respond. You've yet to clarify what it was about Thermopylae that illustrates this demonization, btw, so not clear what brings us to that particular place and time other than woeful pop culture. It was a battle against two warring factions, with attendant implications, yada yada wake me when this gets interesting.

My point in throwing out the Moguls and Persian cultural influence and military antagonisms east, was to address the distinct impression that you have special rules for the West and for everyone else; that Westerners occupy a special place in Adam's garden where free will exists. One wonders, for example, why the Greeks managed to get singled out, when it's less than clear that the Egyptians were big fans. Or why Persian cultural influence (imperialism?) on the West is evidence of some profound truth while its more profound influence elsewhere doesn't merit mention. Images of Mogul civic works are indelibly etched in my brain, so I ran there for anecdote. I did not claim that 'the Moguls brought Persian influence to South Asia', only that they are a particularly notable instance of said, and a particularly notable instance of concomitant resentment.

More broadly, it doesn't surprise me that there is antipathy where there is warfare, nor that there is warfare where there are opposing powers. I don't even tend to sift through ancient or even medieval history for insight on current sentiment toward Iran. The meaning of that record for current events is impossibly hamstrung by complexity, such that these types of things are always colored to flatter some precious 3000 year contiguous narrative, and your pat iteration is no exception.

I guess you could say that my point was to inquire as to how 3000 years of relations between the eternal Persia and the governments of civilizations that, at least a few hundred years of cognoscenti might call 'the West', were so happily organized and exceptional, and what that tells us about current events.

On what basis? Rivalry does not equal hatred, and the Persians were quite respected by the Greeks, not least Cyrus the Great, and other of its more tolerant emperors.

I thought you were making a point about the culture, not the entirely perfunctory fact that, you know, there were wars and that wars don't normally foster good vibrations.

They spread its influence, and influence leads to enmity. Or was it your point that the Greeks 'hated' the Persians? Points for obstinacy though.