I am planning to visit Iran someday (Shiraz, Damavand and Ifshahan)
When they first came to power, one of the more unhinged specimens of the Mullahs, the hanging judge Khalkhali, wanted to demolish Persepolis. Iran's heritage and history threatens them.
It is also quite upsetting to the regime that every year Iranians gather at the tomb of Hafiz (Shiraz) and Persepolis (very near Shiraz).
But if you pay attention, you will note that the "Supreme Leader" likes to sit on a chair with clothing that very much resembles the iconic relief of Dariush the Great. :-)
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/af/Darius_I...
Their supporters in the west likewise push the extremist terrorist cult of MEK as the alternative. I sometimes wonder if this is implicitly a threat to Iranians of who will come to power should they throw out the Mullahs (who clearly had and still have foreign support). What is oddly consistent across the histrionic divide is a shared interest in propaganda against the Pahlavi dynasty. No less than NYTimes is on this game.
Go figure ..
* Achaemenid - Cyrus the Great, Xerxes, etc
* Alexander - Conquered Persian Empire
* Seleucid - Alexander's General
* Parthian - Nomadic invaders who ruled Persia from horseback
* Sassanian - Native Persians who expelled the Parthians and saw themselves as the heirs of the Achaemenids
* Arab Caliphate - Part of the Muslim conquest
* Mongol Ilkhanate - Conquered by Hulagu, Grandson of Genghis Khan
* Safavid - Founded by Ismail. It was under this dynasty that Iran/Persia became Shiite as opposed to Sunni
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_iran
For the academic treatment, I highly recommend Encyclopædia Iranica:
http://www.iranicaonline.org/pages/about
A request for you: please call it as we have called it for millennia: Iran.
I've met quite a few (ethnic) Iranians who have told me off for referring to it as Iran instead of Persia, but that may well be more tied up with recent history than ancient history.
Historically, only enemies of Iran refer to it as Persia. The British, for example, remain quite keen to call us that.
"Iran" has been the term people used inside to refer to the land/people for a very long time, but Shah officially requested the change from foreign governments in 1935.[2]
http://www.heritageinstitute.com/zoroastrianism/
Scroll down to the Site Contents, the third column is dedicated to (mostly) Persian history.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parthian_Empire
It was the 3rd Iranian empire (I do not consider Elam to be Iranian) that fell to the Arabs, the Sassanian:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sassanian_Empire
To an extent, as an Iranian, it is partially true that post Sassanian, no other Iranian dynasty had command over the entirety of historic Iranian lands and boundaries. The last Iranian dynasty, the Pahlavi dynasty of the 20th century came closest.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Iranian_dynasties_and_...
> There is an inferiority complex in Persian politics.
I'm quite confident that mindset is a thing of the past. (Look at China.) Currently of course we are burdened with a regime that is polluting Iranian culture. But this too shall pass, God willing.
[p.s. regarding other mis-statements]:
> Since Iran then was then subsequently ruled by Caliphs, Turkish Sultans and then western rulers.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samanids
That's a pretty substantial piece of real estate, agreed?
> western rulers.
Possibly you are referring to the Pahlavi Shahs (?), in which case it important to point out that if the Shah of Iran was in fact a puppet of the West they would not have been so pleased to see him go. You may want to take a trip to Iran and ask the natives what are their feelings towards the Pahlavi dynasty these days ...