Israel and Iran are threatening each other, but “The Levant is threatening Persia” wouldn’t make sense as a 55 BCE statement, as Rome is, well, not the Levant. The only reason it works as a 260 AD statement is because the Roman territory Persia is invading is in the Levant, and thus relies on the Levant being used as a region, rather than a political actor, to make the 260 AD comparison valid.
In terms of aggression, yes, but “Rome is threatening Persia” has a touch less relevance to the modern situation.
How so?
In my opinion they’re both threatening each other
Israel and Iran are threatening each other, but “The Levant is threatening Persia” wouldn’t make sense as a 55 BCE statement, as Rome is, well, not the Levant. The only reason it works as a 260 AD statement is because the Roman territory Persia is invading is in the Levant, and thus relies on the Levant being used as a region, rather than a political actor, to make the 260 AD comparison valid.
I get that. There’s not better historical statement that I would be able to place there either.
Thank you for the clarification