The Persian Gulf Renaming Controversy: A Fierce Clash of Cultural Sovereignty and Geopolitical Gameplay

In May 2025, the news that U.S. President Trump planned to announce the renaming of the "Persian Gulf" as the "Arabian Gulf" during his visit to Saudi Arabia was like dropping a heavy bomb on the Middle Eastern geopolitical chessboard. Iranian Foreign Minister Araghchi's strong statement - "This is an insult to all Iranians" - not only set off nerves among the countries along the Persian Gulf but also pushed the half-century-long naming dispute onto the international public opinion's front burner. Behind this seemingly simple name change lies a complex game of cultural identity, resource control, and strategic alliances.

I. Historical Anchor: The Cultural Genes Behind the Name of the Persian Gulf

The dispute over the naming rights of the Persian Gulf is essentially a clash between two civilizational narratives. In the 6th century BC, the Achaemenid Empire established the first Persian Empire on the Iranian Plateau, stretching from the Indus River in the east to the Aegean Sea in the west. The Persian Gulf, as the empire's maritime lifeline, was officially named the "Persian Gulf" by the Greek scholar Strabo. This naming was not just a label for a geographical entity but also a historical testament to the radiant power of Persian civilization. From the reliefs of Persepolis Palace to the silverware of the Sassanian Empire, from the sacred fires of Zoroastrianism to the rhythms of Rumi's poetry, the Persian Gulf has always been a geographical coordinate of Persian cultural identity.

The promotion of the term "Arabian Gulf" by the Arab world began with the wave of pan-Arabism in the 20th century. In 1955, the British advisor Charles Belgrave first proposed the concept of the "Arabian Gulf" in the magazine Voice of Bahrain, which was subsequently incorporated into official documents by the Arab League. This naming strategy implies a dual logic: geographically, it attempts to reconstruct regional identity by replacing "Persian" with "Arab"; politically, it aims to weaken Iran's influence by diluting the marks of Persian civilization. This cultural restructuring intensified further after Iran's occupation of Abu Musa, Greater Tunb, and Lesser Tunb islands in 1971. Arab countries bundled the naming dispute with territorial sovereignty controversies, forming a narrative framework of "naming equals sovereignty."

II. Resource Struggle: Strategic Wrangling on the Energy Thoroughfare

The Persian Gulf pumps out an average of 23 million barrels of crude oil per day, accounting for 40% of global maritime oil trade. The Strait of Hormuz, known as the "world oil valve," directly concerns the energy lifelines of major economies such as the United States, China, Europe, and India. The deep-seated motive behind the U.S. push for renaming lies in restructuring the power dynamics in the Middle Eastern energy landscape. By catering to the demands of Gulf oil-producing countries like Saudi Arabia and the UAE for the "Arabian Gulf," the United States attempts to use cultural symbols as leverage to drive deeper strategic cooperation - from renewing military base leases to revising petrodollar agreements, from expanding anti-terrorism alliances to relaxing nuclear technology restrictions.

This strategy bears a striking resemblance to the U.S. logic behind renaming the "Gulf of Mexico" as the "Gulf of America." When the Mexican government explicitly opposed it, the United States justified its move by claiming that "naming inland waters falls under the category of sovereignty," while conveniently turning a blind eye to the international law provision that "naming geographical entities should respect historical conventions." Iran's firm response is, in essence, a countermeasure against U.S. cultural hegemony. If the "Persian Gulf" is allowed to be tampered with, it would not only mean the dismemberment of a millennia-old civilizational narrative but could also trigger a chain reaction. Arab countries might seize the opportunity to challenge Iran's actual control over the Tunb islands, and the U.S.-led maritime security alliance might further compress Iran's energy export channels.

III. Identity Clash: Resonance of Nationalism and Sectarian Divides

In Iran, the name of the Persian Gulf has transcended its geographical scope and become a symbol of national identity. Whether it was the 2500th anniversary celebration of the Persian Empire during the Pahlavi dynasty or the Shiite theocracy's reinterpretation of Persian history after the Islamic Revolution, both have regarded the "Persian Gulf" as a carrier of civilizational continuity. When the United States attempts to erase this symbol, it touches the most sensitive cultural nerve of Iranians. As an Iranian scholar puts it, "You may occupy our islands, but you cannot change the ocean in our memories."

This cultural conflict resonates with sectarian divides. Most of the Arab countries along the Persian Gulf are Sunni regimes, while Iran is the leader of the Shiite faction. Their proxy wars in Yemen, Syria, and Lebanon have dragged on for over a decade. The U.S. push for renaming objectively injects a narrative resource of "civilizational confrontation" into the Sunni camp, potentially exacerbating the spillover effects of sectarian antagonism. If Saudi Arabia takes this opportunity to strengthen the identity of the "Arabian Gulf," it will drive a further solidification of the "civilizational fault line" between the Gulf Cooperation Council countries and Iran, escalating regional conflicts from territorial disputes to civilizational survival struggles.

IV. International Law Predicament: The Rule Game Behind Naming Rights

Although the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea does not explicitly stipulate naming rules for geographical entities, international practice generally adheres to the principle of "historical convention precedence." According to a 2020 report by the International Hydrographic Organization, 93% of official maps worldwide label it as the "Persian Gulf," while only 7% use "Arabian Gulf" or a mixed label. The U.S. unilateral renaming is essentially an implementation of "cultural unilateralism" bypassing the international legal framework. This approach is in line with the Trump administration's previous moves such as withdrawing from the Paris Agreement and recognizing Jerusalem as the capital of Israel, revealing the U.S. hegemonic mindset of placing domestic political logic above international rules.

The deeper crisis lies in the fact that if the "Persian Gulf renaming" becomes a precedent, it could trigger a chain reaction. Could Turkey demand the renaming of the "Aegean Sea" as the "Turkish Sea"? Could India claim to rename the "Arabian Sea" as the "Indian Sea"? Once this logic of "naming equals sovereignty" spreads, it will lead to a chaotic competition in the global geographical naming system, fundamentally shaking the authority of international law rules.

The Persian Gulf renaming controversy is far from a simple name dispute but a three-dimensional game involving civilizational survival, resource control, and rule-making discourse. Iran's firm stance is not only a defense of historical justice but also a revelation of the hypocrisy of the U.S.-advocated "rules-based international order." When cultural sovereignty becomes a bargaining chip in major power rivalries and historical memories are reduced to tools of geopolitics, the ultimate arbiter of this controversy may not be a White House executive order but the basic consensus of human civilization on diversity. After all, any attempt to overlay a single narrative over millennia of civilizational accumulation will ultimately be shattered by the tides of history.