作者： admin

Against the backdrop of fragile ongoing ceasefire talks between the United States and Iran, a striking historical parallel drawn by an ancient history scholar offers a stark warning: reaching a lasting peace may prove just as destabilizing and painful as enduring open conflict. As the future of any potential US-Iran agreement remains uncertain, with no clear consensus on its terms or longevity, Peter Edwell, an associate professor of ancient history at Australia’s Macquarie University and a specialist on ancient Persia (the historical predecessor to modern Iran), argues that the current diplomatic gridlock facing the Trump administration should come as no surprise.

For centuries, the two great competing powers of the ancient world — the Roman Empire and the Persian Empire, ruled first by the Parthian dynasty from 247 BCE to 224 CE, then by the Sasanian dynasty until 651 CE — cycled endlessly between open war and fragile peace deals that rarely resolved core disputes, and often left underlying tensions worse than before. For these ancient rivals, peace treaties were rarely tools of lasting reconciliation; instead, they were most often just strategic pauses to buy time for military rearmament and preparation for the next conflict.

The first major military clash between Rome and Parthia came in 53 BCE, when Roman general Marcus Crassus launched a disastrous invasion of Parthian territory. The campaign ended in catastrophic defeat on the plains of Carrhae, in modern-day southern Turkey, where Crassus himself was killed and thousands of Roman troops lost their lives. The defeat emboldened Parthia, and by 20 BCE, Rome was forced to accept a peace agreement that formalized the Euphrates River as the official border between the two empires — a major concession for a power that had previously known unbroken territorial expansion.

Conflict reignited in the mid-first century CE, this time over control of strategically located Armenia, a buffer state nestled between the two empires in what is now modern Armenia and eastern Turkey. After the conclusion of hostilities, Roman Emperor Nero and Parthian King Vologases I agreed to the Treaty of Rhandeia in 63 CE, which allowed Parthia to nominate Armenia’s king, on the condition that the coronation be performed by the Roman emperor in Rome. While the treaty resolved the immediate crisis, its awkward power-sharing structure proved unworkable over time. When Parthia ultimately disregarded the agreement’s terms, Roman Emperor Trajan launched a full-scale invasion of Parthia in 114 CE. Though Trajan’s forces won early victories, including capturing the Parthian capital, the invasion ultimately collapsed, and all Roman territorial gains were lost within just three years, by the time of Trajan’s death in 117 CE.

After the Sasanian dynasty replaced the Parthians as rulers of Persia in 224 CE, tensions with Rome escalated dramatically, with control of Armenia once again at the center of most disputes and peace agreements. When Roman Emperor Gordian III died during an invasion of the Sasanian Empire in 244 CE, the two powers struck a new treaty that imposed heavy financial reparations on Rome and included a clause banning any Roman interference in Armenian affairs. Within just a few years, however, Rome violated the agreement, triggering a wave of devastating Sasanian invasions of Roman territory that culminated in the capture of Roman Emperor Valerian by Sasanian forces in 260 CE. A famous rock relief from the period, which depicts Valerian kneeling in submission to Sasanian King Shapur I, remains a lasting symbol of this humiliating Roman defeat.

Rome won a major victory over Sasanian King Narseh in the late 290s CE, and the resulting 299 CE Treaty of Nisibis extended Roman influence deep into the east and gave Rome full control of Armenia. But the lopsided agreement planted deep seeds of resentment among the Sasanians. By the 350s CE, Sasanian King Shapur II launched a major invasion of Roman territory explicitly to overturn the 60-year-old treaty. The conflict escalated when Roman Emperor Julian launched a counter-invasion of the Sasanian Empire in 363 CE, a campaign that ended in devastating Roman defeat and Julian’s death on the battlefield.

While conflict between the two empires cooled slightly in the fifth century CE, it intensified dramatically again in the sixth and seventh centuries CE, when Rome and Persia were almost continuously at war. Dozens of peace treaties were negotiated during this period, but none endured. The most infamous example was the so-called Eternal Peace of 532 CE, which collapsed completely in less than eight years.

Edwell notes that history repeatedly demonstrates that even highly celebrated peace agreements, celebrated as breakthroughs at the time of signing, often lay the groundwork for future discord and renewed conflict. It took more than 400 years of intermittent war and dozens of failed negotiations before Rome and Persia finally reached a lasting agreement to partition Armenia between the two powers in the 380s CE.

Centuries of cyclical conflict, broken treaties, and stalemate preceded even that partial resolution. Today, as the US pursues a peace deal with Iran against the backdrop of a shaky ceasefire, the question lingers: will the current negotiations follow the same fraught path as the ancient clashes between Rome and Persia? Only time will reveal the answer — but the scholar’s hope is that a lasting resolution will not take centuries this time around.

In a recent appearance on Tucker Carlson’s political talk show, prominent American author and geopolitical analyst Brandon Weichert has delivered a scathing assessment of the US-Iran ceasefire memorandum of understanding, reached after months of joint US-Israeli military action against Iran, calling the document nothing less than a formal conditional surrender by the United States.

Weichert’s core argument centers on the massive drawdown of American missile stockpiles over the course of the conflict, which he says left the Trump administration with no viable option but to enter negotiations and accept a deal that ultimately handed Iran a strategic victory.

“Ultimately, this is a conditional surrender document,” Weichert stated during the interview. “The United States started a war and it promptly lost. The Iranians have, unfortunately, at a strategic level, achieved victory.” He added that while the Trump administration had no other choice given the pressing timeline of looming resource shortages that left it backed into a corner, the end result remains a surrender regardless of the administration’s reasoning.

Weichert’s controversial remarks land amid intense ongoing partisan and policy debate over the text of the memorandum, which establishes a foundational framework for sustained diplomatic negotiations between Washington and Tehran and codifies the ceasefire that halted months of open military confrontation between the two sides. Citing only unclassified, publicly available data on American weapons usage throughout the conflict, Weichert laid out staggering figures for depleted US munitions inventories.

According to his analysis, roughly half of the United States’ total stockpile of Patriot ballistic missile interceptors were fired during the war, alongside between 50% and 80% of the nation’s Terminal High Altitude Area Defence (THAAD) interceptors. Weichert also claimed that more than 1,000 Tomahawk cruise missiles — approximately one-third of the entire US stockpile — were expended in the conflict. He added that large numbers of JASSM air-to-surface standoff missiles were used, and that nearly the entire pre-war inventory of newly produced Precision Strike Missiles was completely consumed in military operations.

Beyond ground and air-launched munitions, Weichert argued that US naval forces faced far greater and more underreported threats during the kinetic phase of the war than the White House has publicly acknowledged. “The Navy reports that they expended large quantities of their SM-3 and SM-6 naval interceptors,” he said. “That indicates to me, if I may conjecture here, that there must have been one hell of a fight over the security of our ships when the war was in its kinetic phase.” From these figures, he concluded that the White House deliberately misled the public when it claimed US naval vessels operating in the region remained completely safe throughout the conflict, arguing the high interceptor expenditure proves American ships faced severe, unacknowledged risks.

One of the most alarming parts of Weichert’s assessment is his projection of multi-year delays to replenish these drained arsenals. According to his timeline, Precision Strike Missiles can be fully restocked by the end of this year, while JASSM inventories will not be fully replaced until the middle of 2026. Naval SM-3 and SM-6 interceptors, he estimates, will not be back to pre-war levels until 2028. Patriot and THAAD interceptor stockpiles could take until roughly 2030 to fully replenish, and Tomahawk cruise missile inventories may require another five years to restore.

“So, we’d better hope that the Chinese or some other area of interest is no longer requiring our assistance because we have depleted ourselves,” Weichert warned.

Weichert’s analysis aligns with a recent bombshell report from *The New York Times*, which revealed that former President Trump and senior Pentagon leaders have been pressuring major defense contractors to speed up weapons production, while simultaneously pushing Congress to approve an extra $70 billion in funding to cover war costs and restock depleted arsenals. The *Times* reporting confirms that defense companies have told the Trump administration that expanding production capacity will require massive new capital investment, and the administration’s funding request is already projected to face fierce bipartisan opposition on Capitol Hill. The *Times* also independently verified the broad scope of US munitions depletion, confirming that the military used roughly 1,100 long-range stealth cruise missiles, more than 1,000 Tomahawk missiles, over 1,200 Patriot interceptors, and more than 1,000 Precision Strike and ATACMS missiles throughout the conflict.

Beyond the immediate military implications of drawn-down stockpiles, Weichert argued that the conflict has accelerated an irreversible long-term geopolitical shift across the Middle East, moving the region rapidly toward what he calls a “post-American” order that diminishes the central role Israel has played for decades as the anchor of Washington’s regional security architecture.

“There is now going to be a new Middle East,” he said, outlining his prediction that five regional powers will shape the future balance of power in the area: Saudi Arabia, Iran, Pakistan, Egypt, and Turkey. Weichert argued that Turkey’s rapidly expanding domestic defense industry, Pakistan’s established nuclear capabilities, and the competing regional influence of Saudi Arabia, Iran, and Egypt will combine to form a new regional order that is far less dependent on Washington for security and governance. “Those greater Middle East powers are gonna form a new post-American order,” he said. “Where it goes from here really is up to Mr Netanyahu and his government.”

To date, the White House and senior US military officials have publicly defended the memorandum, framing it as a favorable deal that advances US national interests. Even so, the Trump administration has faced widespread criticism from across the US political spectrum for failing to achieve the core stated objectives it laid out at the start of the conflict, including removing the Iranian government, permanently weakening Iran’s regional influence, and decimating its military capabilities.