Iran has reignited a decades-old dispute over the naming of the Persian Gulf, deploying the issue as a rallying point for nationalist sentiment amid intensifying confrontation with the United States, Israel, and their regional allies. The latest comments by former Iranian foreign minister Mohammad Javad Zarif—chief architect of the now-defunct 2015 nuclear agreement—underscore the regime’s determination to assert both historical claims and resistance in the context of broader geopolitical and military rivalries.
At the center of the matter is the international controversy surrounding the body of water that separates Iran from the Arabian Peninsula. While centuries of maps, international law, and United Nations documents name it the ‘Persian Gulf,’ some Arab countries and international actors have promoted the term ‘Arabian Gulf’—a move that Tehran regards as an affront to Iranian national identity and sovereignty. Speaking to this sentiment, Zarif emphasized that “all Iranians” will not tolerate the misnaming of the Persian Gulf and will demonstrate their opposition to the world, particularly to “the rulers of the White House.”
This symbolic dispute, while seemingly minor, is deeply intertwined with larger power struggles. The region’s strategic waterway is a critical chokepoint for global energy supplies, making control—and even the name—of the Gulf a matter of national pride and political leverage for Iran. The regime leverages such disputes to galvanize the population and distract from domestic unrest and economic hardship, while projecting an image of unwavering opposition to perceived Western encroachment.
The context for Zarif’s remarks is the sustained deterioration in Iran-US relations, dating back to the Trump administration’s 2018 withdrawal from the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) and reimposition of sanctions. Since then, Iran has ramped up uranium enrichment and expanded its network of terror proxies, resulting in an increase in attacks on US and Israeli interests across the Middle East.
Tensions have reached new heights in the wake of the October 7, 2023 massacre, when Iranian-backed Hamas terrorists committed the deadliest antisemitic atrocity since the Holocaust, massacring and abducting Israeli civilians in southern Israel. The fallout from the massacre has reverberated across the region, with Israel waging a sustained campaign to dismantle Hamas’ infrastructure in Gaza and counter the broader Iranian axis—including Hezbollah in Lebanon, the Houthis in Yemen, and armed groups in Iraq and Syria. These entities, guided and supplied by the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC), seek the destruction of Israel and the expulsion of US influence from the region.
Underpinning the Gulf naming dispute are deeply rooted historical and cultural dynamics. For Iranian leaders, the ‘Persian Gulf’ is more than a geographic label; it functions as a symbol of national endurance and legitimacy. Since the 1979 Islamic Revolution, the government has repeatedly invoked nationalist themes to shore up public unity in the face of economic malaise and domestic opposition. This strategy has become all the more urgent as Iran faces international isolation, internal dissent, and heightened risk of military escalation.
In contrast, the Arab monarchies bordering Iran—most notably Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates—have invested heavily in promoting the alternative nomenclature. For these states, the stake is both symbolic and material as they seek to counterbalance Iranian expansion and shape regional identity. Western actors, including media outlets and governments, have sometimes adopted the phrase ‘Arabian Gulf,’ either out of deference to Gulf Arab sensitivities or as an implicit rebuke to Iran’s regional behavior—a decision that Tehran interprets as hostile interference.
The significance of language in these disputes cannot be overstated. Iranian officials have previously organized National Persian Gulf Day and campaigned for UNESCO and international bodies to enforce what they see as proper historical terminology. The government’s repeated invocation of the dispute—such as Zarif’s latest warning aimed directly at Washington—serves domestic and foreign propaganda objectives alike: reinforcing regime legitimacy, distracting from unpopular economic reforms, and feeding anti-American and anti-Israeli narratives that underpin Iran’s foreign policy.
Yet, this focus on the symbolic does little to address the substantive crises gripping the Islamic Republic. Iran’s pursuit of nuclear enrichment, support for terror groups, and suppression of civil liberties have provoked sustained protests and unrest. International sanctions, compounded by regime mismanagement, have strangled the economy and fueled popular anger at home—even as senior officials employ external confrontations like the Gulf naming row to maintain the appearance of national unity.
On the international front, United States policy—whether through diplomatic engagement or economic pressure—has remained consistent in opposing Iranian expansion and supporting Israel’s right to defend its citizens from terrorism. Israel, under Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and defense leaders, has made clear that its operational campaigns in Gaza, Lebanon, and beyond are responses to direct aggression perpetrated by Iranian proxies. Both Israel and the US view acts like the October 7 massacre as proof of Tehran’s destabilizing vision—a view reinforced by the IRGC’s overt threats, missile deployments, and increasingly sophisticated terror networks.
As the region braces for further instability, peripheral issues like the Persian Gulf naming controversy remain potent indicators of the broader conflict’s complexity. While they may appear trivial on the surface, such disputes reveal the enduring fault lines—historical, cultural, and military—that divide Iran and its adversaries. Ultimately, the nomenclature debate is inseparable from the struggle for regional supremacy and the fierce ideological contest between theocratic authoritarianism and Western-backed democracy.
For Israel and its allies, maintaining clarity about facts, history, and terminology is crucial in the fight against misinformation and the delegitimization of Israel’s right to self-defense. This commitment takes on increased significance in light of Iran’s ongoing efforts to reshape regional narratives by leveraging terror, propaganda, and nationalist fervor. The campaign to ensure the world recognizes the true nature of the Iranian regime’s objectives—and to stand in solidarity with the victims of its proxies’ violence—remains as urgent as ever.
