Abstract

This paper argues that the so-called ‘Cyrus Accord’ is neither a diplomatic initiative nor a framework for regional reconciliation, but a strategic instrument of geopolitical subordination, conceived within the policy infrastructure of Washington and Tel Aviv to pre-empt and reshape Iran’s post-theocratic future. It situates the Accord within a broader continuum of interventionist design, demonstrating how its circulation, absent any formal treaty structure, functions as a form of anticipatory governance, a script awaiting political rupture in order to be operationalised.

 

The study further contends that the Accord advances a mythopolitical project through the appropriation of Cyrus the Great as a civilisational signifier, retroactively constructing a fabricated antiquity to legitimise Israel’s contested presence and to conscript Iranian historical memory into a narrative of shared destiny. Through historical, textual, and archaeogenetic critique, it dismantles the claim of an unbroken ancient continuity between Iran and Israel, exposing instead a post-exilic theological formation shaped under Achaemenid influence and subsequently repurposed for modern ideological ends.

 

In doing so, the paper reframes the Accord not as an instrument of peace, but as an act of narrative and geopolitical engineering, aimed at neutralising Iranian sovereignty, fragmenting its national coherence, and subordinating its future to external strategic imperatives. It concludes that the Cyrus Accord constitutes an imperial imposition masked in civilisational language, whose acceptance would entail not diplomatic normalisation but the erosion of Iran’s political and historical agency.

 

 

Introduction

In February 2019, at the Warsaw Conference, the Trump administration and Benjamin Netanyahu unveiled their intention to forge a coalition against Iran, ostensibly to shield Israel from external threats (Czulda, 2019). By 13 August 2020, this alliance had acquired formal status under the title of the ‘Abraham Accord’. Its architects were Jared Kushner, Trump’s son-in-law and long-standing family intimate of Netanyahu; Avi Berkowitz, Chief Executive of FDD (FDD, 2020), and Kushner’s advisor who was also appointed Special Representative for International Negotiations; and David M. Friedman, the US Ambassador to Israel.

 

The central logic of the Abraham Accord is crude in its transactional clarity: any Arab regime agreeing to normalise relations with Israel would receive full-spectrum backing from the United States, military, financial, and diplomatic. Sanctions, where inconvenient, would be quietly dismantled.

 

Yet the main objective of the Abraham Accords is to strengthen Israel’s position as a regional superpower, particularly in the context of the erosion of US hegemony in the region following the collapse of the petrodollar system and the rise of China as an alternative global power. In this shifting balance, these developments are increasingly visible and can be felt in the strategic realignments taking place across the Middle East.

 

One element often associated with this trajectory is the potential creation or consolidation of Somaliland as a separate entity from Somalia, where, at present, Israeli interests, with financial backing from the UAE, are reportedly active. The strategic logic behind such involvement is linked to gaining greater control over the Red Sea corridor and, by extension, influence over global trade routes that pass through chokepoints such as the Suez Canal.

 

In this context, evidently Israel’s longer-term objective includes extending its strategic reach through territorial and infrastructural control, including the occupation and incorporation of Gaza into its territory. This, in turn, would enable Israel to pursue the Ben Gurion Canal Project, a conceptual, highly ambitious plan to construct a 292.9 km (approximately 182 miles) waterway connecting the Gulf of Aqaba (Red Sea) to the Mediterranean Sea near Ashkelon. This intended alternative to the Suez Canal would be deeper (50 m) and wider, and designed to bypass the Suez monopoly, potentially reshaping global shipping routes and eliminating Arab control over the Red Sea and the Suez Canal.

 

In a similar vein, in an article published in September last year, I argued that Israel and the UAE would also be pursuing an expansion of this broader agenda through increased influence over the Strait of Hormuz (Suren-Pahlav, 2020). Achieving such influence would be significant, as it would entail leverage over a substantial proportion of global oil flows from the Persian Gulf. Combined with dominance over the Red Sea corridor, this would, in this interpretation, consolidate Israel’s capacity to advance its strategic objectives.

 

It seems the same formula has now been repackaged for Iran and ultimately the control over the Strait of Hormuz. Titled the ‘Cyrus Accord’, it surfaced on 1 February 2021 and began circulating within foreign policy think tanks and media outlets as a putative roadmap for rapprochement between Israel and a post-Islamic regime in Iran.

 

Its architects, Len Khodorkovsky and Victoria Coates, are not neutral policy actors but key engineers of the project itself. They are firmly embedded in Washington’s coercive policy establishment and ideologically aligned with Israel’s regional security priorities. Khodorkovsky, celebrated by the Jerusalem Post as ‘the State Department’s secret weapon’ (Harkov, 2020), held the post of Senior Advisor to the US Special Representative for Iran and later served as Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for Digital Strategy. His professional trajectory reveals an unbroken alignment with US punitive strategy and Israeli securitisation. Coates, likewise, moved through the upper echelons of the Trump administration’s National Security Council, promoting an interventionist agenda dressed in the rhetoric of stabilisation (Coates, 2021).

 

Both Khodorkovsky and Coates maintain close ties to the Foundation for Defense of Democracies (FDD), a US-based think tank with pronounced ideological and financial entanglements with Israeli political and military interests. The FDD has long functioned not as a forum for disinterested analysis, but as a policy engine for militarised lobbying, Iran’s balkanisation narratives, and the legitimation of preemptive aggression under the guise of democratic promotion.

 

The Cyrus Accord, far from a diplomatic innovation, should be read as an extension of this apparatus: a rebranded strategy of containment and subversion, designed to secure Israeli primacy and American influence in any post-theocratic configuration of Iran. Yet, unlike the Abraham Accord, it lacks a named proxy. No exiled technocrat, comprador intellectual, or foreign-aligned opposition figure has yet been publicly designated to carry the project home. The absence of an identifiable Iranian signatory, a willing collaborator, leaves the accord suspended in speculative diplomacy, awaiting its traitor (Suren-Pahlav, 2017).

 

 

What is Cyrus Accord?

Although the details of the Cyrus Accord have not been revealed, if there are any, and it may be in a conceptual stage, yet it cannot be merely a symbolic gesture or speculative rhetoric. It is designed as a geopolitical charter to be imposed upon the aftermath of regime collapse in Iran. Its publication was no private memorandum but a deliberate act of circulation. Khodorkovsky outlined its premises in the Jerusalem Post on 1 February 2021, declaring that ‘peace between Iran and Israel is inevitable’ (Khodorkovsky, 2021). Coates followed days later with her essay ‘Cyrus Accords Promise a Hopeful Future for Iran and Israel’ (Coates, 2021). Within forty-eight hours, the New York Post amplified the initiative (Editorial Board, 2021).

 

Then comes the question of intent. Not as speculation, but as indictment. The Cyrus Accord, despite bearing the name of Cyrus the Great, is not a gesture of peace. It is a declaration of design, conceived in the political laboratories of Israel’s security apparatus and its American auxiliaries, aimed not at the regime, but at the Iranian nation as such.

 

There is no full text, no treaty, no official memorandum, only circulation, signal, and choreography. Yet this absence is not an oversight; it is the point. The vagueness functions as strategic cover, allowing Israel and its lobbying infrastructure in Washington to operate without accountability, while seeding consent in policy circuits and media ecosystems. This is soft war architecture: an undeclared script waiting for crisis to make it real.

 

What remains deliberately unspoken in the public articulation of the Cyrus Accord, yet structurally central to its logic, is its function within a wider geopolitical architecture aimed at the consolidation of maritime and energy chokepoints. Read in conjunction with parallel developments in the Red Sea corridor, including the long-mooted Ben Gurion Canal project, the Accord assumes a different character: not merely a post-regime diplomatic framework, but a mechanism for securing the Iranian flank of a transregional logistics regime. Control over Gaza and the eastern Mediterranean would facilitate an Israeli-controlled alternative to Suez; influence over the Strait of Hormuz would extend that control to the principal artery of global oil flows. In such a configuration, a politically subordinated Iran is not incidental but indispensable. The Cyrus Accord thus operates as the anticipatory political instrument through which access to, and eventual compliance over, Hormuz may be engineered, completing a continuum of strategic dominance from the Mediterranean basin to the Persian Gulf. What is presented as rapprochement is, in effect, the precondition for the integration of Iran into an externally managed system of trade, transit, and energy circulation, in which sovereignty is hollowed out in favour of infrastructural submission.

 

Its authors and backers are not passive observers of Iran’s internal politics; they are active participants in a campaign to balkanise, fragment, and dismember the Iranian nation by any means available. Institutions such as the Foundation for Defense of Democracies (FDD), alongside individuals like Brenda Shaffer and Reuel Marc Gerecht, have pushed a coordinated narrative that reduces Iran to an artificially multi-ethnic state on the verge of internal implosion. This is not academic misjudgement; it is ethnic engineering, designed to justify intervention and undermine the territorial and historical coherence of Iran as a civilisational nation-state.

 

Nor is this the first time Israel has aligned itself with Iran’s political subversion. History speaks plainly. In 1979, as the imperial government of Iran, already targeted by the Bernard Lewis Plan (Suren-Pahlav, 2010; 2018), teetered under the weight of foreign destabilisation and engineered domestic unrest, Israeli intelligence, alongside Western security services, calculated that the installation of an Islamic regime would serve their regional interests more predictably than a sovereign, secular, and modernising monarchy (Suren-Pahlav, 2000). What was abandoned was not the Pahlavi dynasty per se, but the idea of an independent Iranian centre of power, one capable of commanding its own historical narrative, forging its own regional alliances, and resisting the cartographies of colonial management. They bet on clerical authoritarianism over Iranian nationalism, and won. The result was not peace, but four decades of regional instability, internal repression and bloodshed, and geopolitical dispossession. That very regime, one that Israel helped into being, would later become its preferred enemy, a permanent justification for militarised expansion and foreign entrenchment.

 

Now, the same architects extend a hand, this time not to Islamists, but to technocrats and proxies in waiting. The goal remains unchanged: neutralise Iran’s geopolitical agency, erase its civilisational continuity, and force its post-regime form into alignment with the strategic imperatives of Tel Aviv and Washington.

 

To frame the Cyrus Accord as a peace initiative is a category error. It is an imperial instrument masked in civilisational language, a psychological operation wearing the mask of diplomacy. It seeks not dialogue, but domestication. Its function is post-collapse insertion, ready to be activated when the nation lies disoriented, its sovereignty suspended, its future up for seizure.

 

The very deployment of ‘Cyrus’, Iran’s most potent symbol of statecraft, pluralism, and autonomy, is itself an act of desecration. The name has been repurposed not to honour Iranian heritage, but to co-opt it. To baptise this Accord in the name of Cyrus is to commit an historical obscenity. It is to steal the iconography of Iranian grandeur in order to sanctify a policy of division, occupation, and subordination.

 

There is no innocence here, only performance. And the performance is war, narrative war, memory war, sovereignty war. The Accord’s intent is not merely foul; it is colonial in ambition and annexationist in effect. No rapprochement with Israel can be severed from this lineage. The evidence is historical, the strategy transparent, and the outcome, should it be permitted, entirely foreseeable. This Accord does heralds capitulation. It should be named, condemned, and rejected in full.

 

Thus, the Accord is presented as a benign framework for peace, yet its practical effect would be to subordinate Iran’s transitional sovereignty to the strategic designs of Washington and Tel Aviv.

 

 

The Mythopolitical Agenda of the Cyrus Accord

Beyond its geopolitical aim of pre-empting Iran’s foreign policy autonomy, the Cyrus Accord pursues a deeper ideological ambition: the symbolic legitimisation of Israel’s contested presence through an invented narrative of shared antiquity. By invoking Cyrus the Great (c. 600–530 BCE) as the liberator of the so-called ‘Israelites’ and ‘Jews’ from Babylonian captivity, the Accord attempts to retrofit a false historical record into a mythic script. In this fabrication, two ‘ancient nations’ are said to be bound by providence, implying that Israel’s modern territorial claim is not a colonial insertion, but a divinely preordained inevitability, in which allegedly two ‘ancient nations’ are bound by destiny.

 

Cyrus the Great did not liberate ‘Israelites’ or ‘Jews’ in any modern sense (Suren-Pahlav, 1999). He released only two tribal formations, Benjamin and Levi, whose religious practices bore no resemblance to contemporary Jewish monotheism. The tribe of Benjamin, based in what is now the central West Bank north of Jerusalem, practised a syncretic polytheism that included El, Baal, Asherah, Yahweh, and domestic idols known as teraphim. The Levites, concentrated largely in the southern West Bank, venerated Yahweh alongside El, Asherah, teraphim, and likely Midianite deities (Serpentine or desert gods). What is now recognised as Jewish monotheism did not predate the Babylonian exile. It emerged only in its aftermath, through a theological consolidation deeply influenced by Zoroastrian Persia. These tribes, influenced by their liberators and their religion, adopted numerous Zoroastrian elements, including monotheism, eschatology, angelology, and some of moral and ethical codes. These were not incidental borrowings, but structural adoptions. During the reign of Darius the Great, historians suggest, the ideological architecture of Judaism as a monotheistic religion was actively forged, not discovered (Magee, 2007; Willey, 1998; Mehta, 2000).

 

Thus the claim to an unbroken, ancient, monotheistic tradition collapses under scrutiny. What emerges instead is a post-exilic theological synthesis, orchestrated under imperial patronage and shaped by the religious grammar of the Achaemenid court. To project this invented continuity backward onto the age of Cyrus is not history. It is ideological fabrication, retroactively legitimised through imperial myth-making.

 

This is not historical memory. It is narrative weaponisation. The Cyrus Accord, by resurrecting this myth, does not merely misread the past; it seeks to conscript it into a present-day project of geopolitical sanctification, with Iran reduced to a symbolic footnote in Israel’s self-mythologising script.

 

Yet, this manoeuvre is not new. Since its establishment in 1948, following a partition engineered by British imperial administrators, Israel has repeatedly sought to anchor its modern settler-colonial project in biblical mythology. The claim of territorial return is wrapped in the language of divine sanction. The Cyrus Accord deepens this fabrication by dragging Iran into the script. It recasts modern Iranians as heirs to Cyrus, conscripting their historical memory to sanctify Israel’s permanence. This is not a diplomatic rapprochement. It is a narrative annexation, dressed as civilisational affinity.

 

The narrative collapses under historical and scientific scrutiny. There has never been a continuous polity called ‘Israel’ in recorded history; the biblical Israel was a theological entity, not a state. To claim its modern manifestation as an uninterrupted successor is to traffic in myth rather than history. Archaeogenetic research further dismantles the story. Studies consistently demonstrate that modern Palestinians retain over 80 per cent genetic continuity with Bronze Age Levantine populations (Elhaik, 2013; Haber, et al. 2017; Lazaridis, et al., 2016; Behar, et al., 2013). In contrast, the Ashkenazi majority in Israel and across the world exhibits genetic markers aligned with Eastern European ancestry, shaped above all by Khazarite Turkic admixture (Behar, et al., 2013; Elhaik, 2013; Xue, et al., 2017). The dissonance between narrative and evidence is stark: those portrayed as alien are in fact indigenous, while those claiming ancient return are demonstrably diasporic in origin.

 

In the simplest terms, it is modern Palestinians, together with the southern Lebanese, who embody the authentic continuity of the tribal formations once released by Cyrus from Babylonian captivity. Yet their trajectory diverged sharply from that of Iranians. Though subjugated, Iranians resisted Arabisation with tenacity: they defended Persian as their language, preserved Nowruz as their ancestral festival, and safeguarded cultural autonomy even under foreign dominion. Egyptians, by contrast, relinquished both language and heritage, absorbed wholesale into Arab identity. Palestinians and Lebanese were pressed into a similar mould, not through passive drift but because the Umayyads shifted the axis of empire: first to Damascus in 661 CE, then, through the construction of the Dome of the Rock in Jerusalem in 691 CE, they consecrated the Levant as the symbolic and administrative heart of the Islamic world. This shift entrenched Arabisation across the region, compelling the majority of Jewish and other indigenous communities, along with their cultural forms, to yield before the new Islamic order. Continuity survived only at the level of descent and genetics, not in language or public cultural expression. To appropriate that lineage today and reassign it to a diasporic project masked as ‘return’ is therefore not a restoration of history, but its usurpation, a second dispossession, this time enacted upon memory itself.

 

What the Accord thus attempts is a re-legitimation of Israel through Iran’s symbolic capital. To bind Iran into endorsing Israel’s myth of antiquity is to conscript Iranian history as propaganda. It would not only neutralise Iran as a political adversary but actively co-opt it into the ideological labour of rewriting regional memory. The deception lies in the pairing of two civilisational names, ‘Cyrus the Great’ and ‘Israel’, to conjure continuity where there is rupture, to create inevitability where there is contingency, and to present fabrication as heritage.

 

In this sense, the Cyrus Accord is more than foreign policy; it is an act of historical engineering. It seeks to rob Iranians not only of political sovereignty but of cultural sovereignty, transforming and weaponising their most iconic historical figure known to Iranians as the ‘Father of Nation’ into a tool for sanctifying a project of colonisation. Recognition, in this frame, is not diplomatic gesture but mythic consecration.

 

​

 

Conclusion

The Cyrus Accord is not an Iranian accord. It is an Israeli-American imposition, conceived in the war rooms of Tel Aviv and Washington, drafted without the consent or counsel of any sovereign Iranian mandate. It bears all the markers of strategic coercion, dressed in diplomatic language. Its intent is not liberation, but managed compliance. Its method is subordination; its object is not merely the Iranian state, but Iran’s position within the geopolitical economy of energy and trade.

 

Read in its proper context, the Accord is inseparable from a wider architecture of control extending from the eastern Mediterranean to the Persian Gulf. The consolidation of influence over Gaza and the Red Sea corridor, coupled with the long-articulated ambition to bypass Suez through an alternative canal infrastructure, finds its necessary complement in the neutralisation of Iran at the Strait of Hormuz. What is at stake, therefore, is not simply diplomatic normalisation, but the integration of Iran into a transregional system in which the principal arteries of global shipping and oil circulation are subject to external leverage. A subordinated Iran is not an outcome of this design; it is its precondition.

 

No Iranian hand shaped this document. None have yet signed their name to its treachery. Yet the infrastructure of betrayal is already in place. Whether through regime-aligned operatives embedded in the diaspora posing as opposition, or through the MEK, a cultic paramilitary formation with a documented record of espionage, assassination, and strategic collusion, the Accord awaits its proxy. These are not hypothetical threats: the MEK leadership took shelter in Saddam Hussein’s palace while Iraqi bombs fell on Iranian cities. That they would now align themselves with Israeli intelligence follows the same logic of instrumentalisation that has defined their history.

 

If Iranian patriots, within or in exile, continue to avert their gaze from this theatre of manufactured consent, they risk becoming midwives to their own political erasure. The task is not dialogue, nor reform, nor cautious engagement. It is rupture. Strip the Accord of its borrowed legitimacy. Name its architects. Expose the infrastructure within which it operates. Reassert that the right to determine Iran’s strategic future, including control over its territorial waters and its position within global trade routes, belongs to a sovereign parliament, freely elected by the Iranian people under a constitution of their own making, not one engineered abroad.

 

Anything less is a historic betrayal, with collaborators already rehearsing their lines.

 

 

References

• Behar, D.M., Yunusbayev, B., Metspalu, M., et al. (2013) ‘The genome‑wide structure of the Jewish people’, Nature, 466(7303), pp. 238‑242.

• Coates, V. (2021) ‘Cyrus Accords Promise a Hopeful Future for Iran and Israel’, Centre for Security Policy, 16 February. Available at: https://centerforsecuritypolicy.org/cyrus-accords-promise-a-hopeful-future-for-iran-and-israel [Accessed: 15 February 2021].

• Czulda, R. (2019) ‘The Warsaw Summit: Not So "Anti-Iranian" but Still a Success’, Atlantic Council, 12 February. Available at: https://www.atlanticcouncil.org/blogs/iransource/the-warsaw-summit-not-so-anti-iranian-but-still-a-success/ [Accessed: 15 February 2021].

• Editorial Board (2021) ‘The Cyrus Accords and other commentary’, New York Post, 2 February. Available at: https://nypost.com/2021/02/02/the-cyrus-accords-and-other-commentary [Accessed: 15 February 2021].

• Elhaik, E. (2013) ‘The missing link of Jewish European ancestry: contrasting the Rhineland and the Khazarian hypotheses’, Genome Biology and Evolution, 5(1), pp. 61–74. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1093/gbe/evs119 [Accessed: 15 February 2021].

• FDD (2020) ‘A Step Towards Peace: The "New Normal" for the United Arab Emirates’, Foundation for Defense of Democracies, 8 October. Available at: https://www.fdd.org/events/2020/10/08/a-step-towards-peace-the-new-normal-for-the-united-arab-emirates/ [Accessed: 15 February 2021].

• Haber, M., et al. (2017) ‘Continuity and Admixture in the Last Five Millennia of Levantine History from Ancient Canaanite and Present‑Day Lebanese Genomes’, American Journal of Human Genetics, 101(2), pp. 274‑282.

• Harkov, L. (2020) ‘Len Khodorkovsky: The State Department's secret weapon’, The Jerusalem Post, 19 December. Available at: https://www.jpost.com/diaspora/len-khodorkovsky-the-state-departments-secret-weapon-652418 [Accessed: 15 February 2021].

• Khodorkovsky, L. (2021) ‘Peace between Iran and Israel is inevitable’, The Jerusalem Post, 1 February. Available at: https://www.jpost.com/opinion/peace-between-iran-and-israel-is-inevitable-opinion-657351 [Accessed: 15 February 2021].

• Lazaridis, I., et al. (2016) ‘Genomic Insights into the Origin of Farming in the Ancient Near East’, Nature, 536(7617), pp. 419‑424.

• Magee, M. D. (1999) ‘Inventing a Religion: How Persia Created Judaism’, CAIS at SOAS, [online] Available at: https://www.cais-soas.com/CAIS/Religions/non-iranian/Judaism/Persian_Judaism/Persia_created_judaism.htm/ [Accessed: 15 February 2021].

• Mehta, K. P. (2000) ‘Influence of Zoroastrian Religion on the Abrahamic faiths of Judaism, Christianity and Islam’, CAIS at SOAS, [online] Available at: https://www.cais-soas.com/CAIS/Religions/iranian/Zarathushtrian/z_influence_abrahamic.htm [Accessed: 15 February 2021].

• Suren-Pahlav, S. (1999) ‘Cyrus The Great: The Father & Liberator’, CAIS SOAS, 12 February. [online] Available at: https://www.cais-soas.com/CAIS/History/hakhamaneshian/Cyrus-the-great/cyrus_the_great.htm [Accessed: 15 February 2021].

• Suren-Pahlav, S. (2000) ‘A Death in Exile, A Nation in Chains: Remembering HIH Mohammad Reza Shah Pahlavi, Shāhanshāh Āryāmehr’, suren-pahlav.com, 27 July. [online] Available at: https://www.suren-pahlav.com/en/a-death-in-exile-nation-in-chains-remembering-shahanshah-aryamehr.html [Accessed: 15 February 2021].

• Suren-Pahlav, S. (2010) ‘Mullahs, the West and Zionism: The Diabolical Triangular Project for the Balkanisation of Iran’, suren-pahlav.com (12 February). Available at: https://www.suren-pahlav.com/en/mullahs-west-zionism-diabolical-triangular-project-for-the-balkanisation-of-iran.html [Accessed: 15 February 2021].

• Suren-Pahlav, S. (2017) ‘Xenophilia, Self-Contempt and Treachery: How the Islamic regime and Exilic Dislocation Produced a Nation Estranged from Itself’, suren-pahlav.com (7 January). Available at: https://www.suren-pahlav.com/en/iran-and-xenophilia-self-contempt.html [Accessed: 15 February 2021].

• Suren-Pahlav, S. (2018) ‘Bernard Lewis Dies At 101, But His Cartographies Endure: Zionism, Eurocentrism, And The Engineered Balkanisation Of Iran’, suren-pahlav.com, 20 May. Available at: https://www.suren-pahlav.com/en/bernard-lewis-dies-at-101.html [Accessed: 15 February 2021].

• Suren-Pahlav, S. (2020) ‘Israel’s Strategic Doctrine and the Somalisation of Iran: Erosion of National Sovereignty and Territorial Integrity', suren-pahlav.com (5 September). Available at: https://www.suren-pahlav.com/en/somalisation-plan-for-iran-the-erosion-of-iran-s-national-sovereignty-and-territorial-integrity.html [Accessed: 15 February 2021].

• Willey, M. (1998) ‘Influence of Zoroastrianism on Judaism and Christianity’, CAIS at SOAS, [online] Available at: https://www.cais-soas.com/CAIS/Religions/iranian/Zarathushtrian/zoroastrianism_influence.htm [Accessed: 15 February 2021].

• Xue, Y., Carmi, S., et al. (2017) ‘A population‑genetic study of the Ashkenazi Jews reveals a high degree of European admixture’, Nature Communications, 8:2064.

 

 

To Cite this article (Harvard Style)

Suren-Pahlav, S. (2001) ‘The Cyrus Accord as Myth and Strategy: Fabricated Antiquity, Foreign Power, and Iran’s Sovereignty’ (15 February). [online] Available at: https://www.suren-pahlav.com/en/the-cyrus-accord-as-myth-and-strategy-fabricated-antiquity-foreign-power-and-iran-s-sovereignty.html [Accessed: ].