On 4 January 2020, Donald Trump issued a stark warning to Iran via Twitter, stating:

“Let this serve as a WARNING that if Iran strikes any Americans, or American assets, we have.........targeted 52 Iranian sites (representing the 52 American hostages taken by Iran many years ago), some at a very high level & important to Iran & the Iranian culture, and those targets, and Iran itself, WILL BE HIT VERY FAST AND VERY HARD.”[1]

 

This statement, which explicitly threatened the destruction of cultural sites, sparked immediate outrage and condemnation. Not only did it contravene international law, but it also revealed a troubling disregard for the value of cultural heritage and the principles of cultural literacy.

 

 

International Law and the Protection of Cultural Heritage

The targeting of cultural sites is explicitly prohibited under international law. The 1954 Hague Convention for the Protection of Cultural Property in the Event of Armed Conflict, to which the United States is a signatory, establishes that cultural heritage must be safeguarded during conflicts. The deliberate destruction of such sites constitutes a war crime under the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court. Trump’s threat, therefore, was not merely inflammatory but also a blatant violation of these legal frameworks. By openly declaring an intention to target heritage sites “important to Iran & the Iranian culture,” he undermined the global consensus on the protection of cultural heritage, a consensus painstakingly built over decades.

 

Yet, this was not the first time that the actions of the United States had violated international law, not only through the threat of destroying ancient heritage sites[2], but also through the widespread looting and pillaging of cultural artefacts during military interventions. A particularly egregious example occurred during the 2003 illegal invasion of Iraq, which was justified under the false pretence of combating terrorism and spreading democracy. Over 124,000 artefacts were estimated to have been stolen from Iraq, with American soldiers directly and indirectly implicated in these acts. To date, only around 17,000 looted artefacts have been recovered from the United States. These actions not only represent a failure to uphold international legal obligations, such as the 1954 Hague Convention for the Protection of Cultural Property, but also underscore a troubling pattern of cultural exploitation and neglect.

 

However, beyond the legal ramifications, Trump’s tweet exposed a profound lack of cultural literacy.

 

 

Cultural Literacy and the Value of Heritage

Cultural heritage sites are not merely physical structures; they are repositories of history, identity, and collective memory. For Iran, a nation with a rich history spanning over 7,000 years, sites such as the Ziggurat of Chogha Zanbil, Persepolis, Pasargadae, Naqsh-e Rostam, Taq-e Bostan, and Naqsh-e Jahan Square are emblematic of its cultural and historical legacy. To threaten these sites is to threaten the very essence of Iranian identity.

 

The dismissive tone of Trump’s tweet also reflects a broader issue within certain segments of American society, particularly among his base, often stereotyped as rural, working-class individuals (derogatorily referred to as “hillbillies” or “rednecks”). While such stereotypes are reductive, they point to a deeper cultural divide. The United States, as a relatively young nation, lacks the millennia-old historical landmarks that countries like Iran possess. This, coupled with a lack of emphasis on global cultural education in many parts of the United States, may contribute to a limited appreciation for the significance of cultural heritage. This lack of cultural awareness may not be entirely surprising, considering that 10 per cent of American adults reportedly believe that chocolate milk is produced by brown cows, while an additional 48 per cent are uncertain about its origins [3]. In this context, Trump’s tweet can be seen as a manifestation of this cultural myopia.

 

Moreover, Trump’s lack of cultural appreciation is not an isolated flaw but rather a reflection of his broader character and priorities. Throughout his career as a businessman and public figure since 2016, Trump has been criticised for his narcissism, egotism, and a transactional worldview that prioritises personal gain over collective values. His history of sex scandals, as well as his reputation as a womaniser and misogynist, alongside his involvement in numerous controversial business dealings, further underscore a pattern of behaviour that disregards ethical and cultural considerations [4].

 

As a result, for Trump, “value” is often measured in financial terms or personal accolades, leaving little room for the intangible worth of cultural heritage. This mindset, rooted in self-interest rather than a deeper understanding of history and identity, may explain his bellicose attitude towards the destruction of cultural sites. While his supporters may view this as a sign of his “toughness” or pragmatism, it ultimately reveals a profound disconnect from the values that bind societies together and preserve humanity’s shared legacy.

 

 

Two Sides of a Coin: ISIL’s Islamic Terrorism and Trump’s American Cultural Terrorism

The deliberate targeting of cultural heritage is a tactic that has been employed by extremist groups such as ISIL (ISIS), which infamously destroyed ancient sites in Iraq and Syria, including the temples of Palmyra, the Parthian city of Hatra, and the Mosul Museum. These acts were not merely collateral damage in a conflict but calculated attempts to erase history, undermine identity, and assert dominance over a narrative. Strikingly, Donald Trump’s threat to target Iranian cultural sites reveals a disturbingly similar mentality, albeit couched in a veneer of democracy rather than religious extremism.

 

Both ISIL and Trump’s approach to cultural heritage stem from a profound disregard for the intrinsic value of history and culture. ISIL justified its destruction of ancient sites as a rejection of “idolatry” and a purification of Islamic lands, while Trump framed his threat as a retaliatory measure for political grievances. In both cases, cultural heritage has been reduced to a tool, a means to an end. For ISIL, it was a tool to propagate a distorted ideological narrative; for Trump, it is a bargaining chip in a game of geopolitical brinkmanship. This instrumentalisation of culture reflects a shared mindset that views heritage not as a universal human treasure but as a disposable asset.

 

The parallels extend to the underlying factors that enable such attitudes. Just as ISIL terrorists have been criticised for their lack of cultural literacy and education, the international community, and cultural bodies in particular, should also condemn the cultural illiteracy evident among Trump’s base. ISIL’s destruction of heritage sites was facilitated by a warped interpretation of Islamic teachings, coupled with a rejection of secular history and archaeology. Similarly, Trump’s threat is rooted in a worldview that prioritises immediate political gains over long-term cultural preservation. This is not to equate the two in terms of scale or intent, ISIL’s actions were part of a broader campaign of terror, but rather to highlight the shared intellectual and cultural impoverishment that underpins both.

 

Moreover, both ISIL and Trump exploit cultural heritage as a symbol of power and control. For ISIL, the destruction of ancient sites was a performative act, designed to shock the world and assert its authority. For Trump, the threat to Iranian cultural sites is a performative display of American military might, intended to intimidate and dominate. In both cases, the message is clear: culture is expendable in the pursuit of power.

 

Therefore, the comparison between ISIL’s cultural terrorism and Trump’s threat is not merely academic; it is a sobering reminder of the fragility of cultural heritage in the face of extremism, whether religious or political. It also underscores the urgent need for greater cultural education and awareness, particularly among those in positions of power. The destruction of heritage, whether by ISIL or threatened by Trump, is not just an attack on Iranian heritage and national identity; it is an attack on the collective memory and identity of humanity and mankind’s cultural heritage.

 

 

The Broader Implications of This Threat

Trump’s threat sets a dangerous precedent, suggesting that cultural heritage can be weaponised in geopolitical disputes. This not only represents a direct attack on the Iranian nation and its rich, ancient heritage, but also undermines efforts to preserve global cultural diversity.

 

By openly and shamelessly threatening to target cultural sites, Trump has effectively legitimised the use of heritage as a tool of war, a tactic historically employed by extremist groups like ISIL. Such actions will not only erode the moral and legal frameworks established to protect cultural heritage but will also set a perilous example and blueprint for other powers to follow. When the destruction of cultural sites is signalled as an acceptable strategy in conflict, it emboldens those who seek to erase history and identity for political or ideological gain. Moreover, it paves the way for future genocidal policies that could surpass the atrocities committed by history’s most notorious tyrants, including Alexander of Macedon, the Arab-Muslim invaders of the 7th century, Genghis Khan, Napoleon, Hitler, Pol Pot, and ISIL.

 

 

Conclusion

Donald Trump’s tweet threatening Iranian cultural sites serves as a stark reminder of the fragility of cultural heritage in the face of political aggression. It underscores the importance of cultural literacy and the need for a deeper understanding of heritage as a cornerstone of global mutual respect. This tweet is a call to action for educators, policymakers, and cultural institutions to reaffirm their commitment to preserving and promoting cultural heritage. In an increasingly interconnected world, the protection of cultural sites is not merely a legal obligation but a moral imperative, one that transcends borders, ideologies, and political divides.

 

Moreover, it is crucial to clarify a fundamental reality that Donald Trump and his administration fail to grasp: the Islamic regime in Tehran is unlikely to capitulate to such threats. In fact, the regime shares a disturbingly similar mentality to both Trump and ISIL terrorists in its instrumentalisation of cultural heritage. To them, the value of culture and heritage is “like fodder to savage hyenas,” and therefore, the regime would in fact welcome an attack on Iran’s cultural sites, as it would provide a rallying cry to unify a nation deeply divided against its clerical rulers. Historically, Iranians have set aside their political differences in the face of foreign aggression, uniting to defend their country.

 

Additionally, cultural heritage sites, for Iranians, are not merely a collection of ancient structures; they are the embodiment of their history, identity, and collective memory, a phenomenon that is difficult to grasp or comprehend for countries such as the United States, which lacks a comparable cultural history or heritage. The United States’ history, apart from the bloodshed and genocide of indigenous peoples, is built on the borders carved from the blood of the innocent. Therefore, threatening Iran’s cultural heritage would not weaken the regime but rather bolster it. Such an act would galvanise the Iranian nation to rally behind the regime in a show of national solidarity against a foreign aggressor who dares to destroy their heritage sites.

 

In this context, Trump’s threat is not only reckless but also counterproductive. It reveals a profound misunderstanding of Iranian society and the regime’s tactics of survival. Rather than weakening the Islamic regime, such actions would strengthen its grip on power, turning cultural heritage into a weapon of political consolidation. This underscores the need for a more nuanced and informed approach to international relations, one that recognises the profound significance of cultural heritage and avoids the pitfalls of inflammatory rhetoric.

 

 

References

1. https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1213593975732527112?s=20

 

2. Suren-Pahlav, S. (2003) A Vulture’s Shadow: How US Actions in Iraq Threaten the Ancient Persian Site of Ctesiphon. Available at: [https://www.suren-pahlav.com/en/us-actions-in-iraq-threaten-ancient-ctesiphon.html]

 

3. Hozier. (16 June 2017), 'Nearly 10% of American adults believe chocolate milk come from brown cows, finds study', The Independent. Available at: [https://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/food-and-drink/american-chocolate-milk-brown-cows-study-us-dairy-innvoation-adults-a7793016.html]

 

4. Bloomberg (March 14, 2019) 'Trump Team’s Conflicts and Scandals: An Interactive Guide'. Available at: [https://www.bloomberg.com/graphics/trump-administration-conflicts/?terminal=true]