The Language of the Stone Age in Modern Politics

Shafaqna English- A note by Dr. Mohammad Hossein Mokhtari, Ambassador of the Islamic Republic of Iran to the Vatican:

As has been widely reported in the media, the President of the United States has recently, with striking audacity, explicitly insulted the Iranian nation, its history, and its ancient civilization. It is therefore necessary to briefly articulate several points:
Such rhetoric constitutes a language constructed out of exaggeration, humiliation, and displays of power—a language that has appeared repeatedly throughout history and is typically rooted in a reductive view of the “other.” From a rational perspective, this kind of discourse embodies several fallacies. First, the fallacy of generalization: a nation with a vast and diverse cultural and historical legacy is reduced to a simplistic and negative image. Second, the fallacy of insult in place of argument: instead of engaging in reasoned discourse, the very existence of a people is targeted. Third, the fallacy of power: it presumes that the ability to act is equivalent to the right to do so. Yet within the tradition of political philosophy, power devoid of moral legitimacy lacks validity. As Immanuel Kant maintains, human beings are “ends in themselves,” not mere means; no nation may be degraded or destroyed solely as an instrument for political objectives.
From a historical standpoint, Iran not only possesses a civilizational heritage spanning several millennia but has also been one of the cradles of civilization, science, and culture. From the Achaemenid Empire, which offered early models of religious tolerance, to the Islamic periods in which Iran made significant contributions to global philosophy, medicine, and mathematics, its legacy is profound. History demonstrates that the humiliating language employed by political powers toward nations—whether in nineteenth-century colonialism or twentieth-century wars—has not produced enduring legitimacy but has instead often led to resistance, crisis, and instability.
Every human being and every human society must be regarded as an “end in itself,” not as a means to others’ ends. In simple terms, no individual or nation may be treated merely as an instrument for political, economic, or military objectives—subject to humiliation, threat, or annihilation. When a statement such as “returning a country to the Stone Age” is analyzed within this framework, it becomes evident that such rhetoric fundamentally reduces a nation from a “dignified agent” to a “destructible object.” This constitutes a direct violation of the foundational principles of moral philosophy.
The question arises: can one conceive of a world in which states are entitled to threaten any nation with total destruction or regression simply due to disagreement? The answer is clear: if such a principle were universalized, it would lead to chaos, perpetual war, and the collapse of global order. Thus, this type of discourse is not only unethical but also, from the standpoint of practical reason, untenable and self-contradictory. By violating the principle of human dignity, lacking universalizability, and conflicting with the idea of a global legal order, it is philosophically indefensible. Political power, when detached from universal ethical principles, possesses neither legitimacy nor the capacity to sustain stable international relations. The problem with such statements is not merely their offensiveness; rather, they stand in direct contradiction to the very moral rationality of modernity—an ideal that many Western political systems claim to uphold.
If this rhetoric is analyzed within the framework of “harsh populism,” it becomes clear that the issue extends beyond a mere personal insult; it reflects a particular style of political practice that must be critically examined at a theoretical level. In contemporary Western literature, populism generally rests on a binary opposition between “us” and “them.” In its harsher forms, however, this binary is not merely political but becomes a process of demonization: the “other” is not simply an opponent but a threat to be eliminated or degraded. Within this framework, statements such as “returning a country to the Stone Age” perform a symbolic function: generating fear, inciting emotions, and mobilizing political support through the humiliation of a constructed “other.”
Populists claim to represent the “real people,” casting any opposition as either corrupt or alien. When this logic extends to foreign policy, other nations are likewise portrayed as threatening “others.” Thus, such statements reveal less about Iran than about the speaker’s political need to produce an enemy. Harsh populism, by its very nature, neither tolerates dialogue nor recognizes alternative horizons. Understanding is possible only within a space of mutual respect and attentive listening. Consequently, the language of humiliation is not only unethical but also “anti-understanding,” as it fundamentally undermines the possibility of genuine knowledge.
In the tense landscape of contemporary politics, language is no longer merely a medium for conveying meaning; it has itself become a field of power. Within this field, words can transform from instruments of understanding into tools of humiliation, exclusion, and even threat. The emergence and expansion of a form of “harsh populism”—grounded in the simplification of reality, extreme binary oppositions, and the construction of enemies—signals a profound crisis in political rationality and the ethics of dialogue at the global level. Rather than analyzing differences within the framework of argumentation and legal norms, this discourse reduces nations and cultures to caricatures, thereby paving the way for the negation of human dignity. In response to such language, a return to philosophical and humanistic traditions that emphasize dignity, dialogue, and mutual understanding is indispensable.
Accordingly, the purpose of this essay is not to engage in an emotional dispute but to offer a philosophical critique of a form of political discourse that, by ignoring historical and cultural complexities, resorts to the language of threat and humiliation. It seeks to demonstrate that politics, when detached from the horizon of human dignity and dialogical rationality, not only loses its legitimacy but also undermines the possibility of a stable order grounded in mutual understanding. In a world more in need than ever of dialogue and shared understanding, rethinking the “responsibility of language” in politics is a necessary step toward preserving the dignity of nations and fostering a more humane future.
The historical legacy of Iran is not merely an element of Persian-speaking identity but a foundational chapter in the history of human civilization—a chapter in which the convergence of political power, philosophical wisdom, and scientific creativity produced a unique model of cultural continuity and transformation. As one of the world’s oldest civilizational centers, Iran has played a decisive role, from ancient times to the present, in shaping fundamental concepts of governance, knowledge, and culture. During the Achaemenid period, an imperial system emerged with a complex administrative structure grounded in religious and cultural tolerance, allowing diverse peoples and faiths to coexist within a relatively just legal order. Compared to many contemporary empires, this experience embodied a form of advanced political rationality that later influenced global legal and political traditions.
With the advent of the Islamic era, Iran became a major center for the production and transmission of knowledge. The translation movement, the establishment of scholarly institutions, and the interaction among Greek, Indian, and Iranian traditions created a context in which thought and science flourished in unprecedented ways. Thinkers such as Avicenna (Ibn Sina), who systematized philosophy and medicine; al-Khwarizmi, who laid the foundations of algebra and influenced modern mathematics; and al-Biruni, whose precise studies in astronomy, geography, and anthropology left an enduring mark on global science, all played pivotal roles. This scientific heritage contributed not only to the Islamic world but also, through Latin translations, to the emergence of the European Renaissance.
Alongside these scientific achievements, Iran’s philosophical and literary traditions occupy a distinguished place. From the Illuminationist philosophy of Suhrawardi, integrating reason and intuition, to the profound ethical and mystical dimensions of Persian literature as manifested in the works of poets such as Rumi and Saadi, one finds a deep humanism and cultural cosmopolitanism that transcends geographical boundaries. This literary tradition is not merely an expression of aesthetic sensibility but also a vehicle of practical wisdom and ethical insight that has inspired diverse cultures across centuries.
A defining characteristic of Iranian civilization is its historical continuity alongside transformation. Unlike many ancient civilizations that fragmented over time, Iran has preserved its cultural core while continuously rearticulating itself in response to political, religious, and social changes. This continuity does not signify stagnation but rather a remarkable capacity for adaptation and dialogue with other traditions—a capacity evident in its interactions with ancient Greece, Islamic civilization, and even Western modernity.
Thus, Iran’s historical legacy should be understood not merely as the heritage of a single nation but as part of the shared patrimony of humanity—a legacy in which ideas such as tolerance, the pursuit of truth, and the integration of science and ethics have been uniquely cultivated. In a world facing profound cultural and ethical challenges, revisiting this heritage may open new horizons for mutual understanding, dialogue, and human coexistence.
To reduce a nation with such a deep and multilayered history to the “Stone Age” is not merely a linguistic misstep but a dangerous act of reducing humanity and history to degrading stereotypes. Such discourse harms not only its target but also undermines the credibility of the speaker as a representative of the people within the horizon of rationality and public ethics. Any judgment about a nation that bypasses historical, cultural, and human understanding inevitably collapses into superficiality and illegitimacy. The history of political and ethical thought, both in the West and the East, has clearly demonstrated that the dignity of human beings and nations is intrinsic and irreducible, and that the language of humiliation can never substitute for argument and understanding.
For this reason, condemning such statements is not an emotional reaction but a rational and ethical necessity. If, in the contemporary world, the language of threat and humiliation were to be accepted as a legitimate mode of politics, what would collapse is not only mutual respect among nations but the very foundations of global dialogue and international order. No state—regardless of its power or disagreements—has the right to reduce another to historical or cultural negation. The responsibility of intellectuals, scholars, and policymakers is to restore language to the orbit of rationality and to prevent such discourse from becoming normalized.
Ultimately, the preservation of the dignity of nations is a prerequisite for any sustainable coexistence in the world. Any discourse that violates this dignity must be explicitly and rationally rejected. Only under such conditions can the language of politics transform from an instrument of threat and destruction into a medium for understanding, respect, and cooperation among human beings. It must be clearly stated: no nation can be deprived of its history, just as no culture can be erased from the stage of civilization by a single humiliating remark. If such language remains unchallenged, it gradually normalizes verbal violence and, eventually, real violence. Confronting it, therefore, is not the defense of a particular country but the defense of the fundamental principles of human coexistence.

www.shafaqna.com