The Kuzari vs. the Iranians

One of the relatively well-known problems with Judaism is the missing years )- Basically, Chazal created a timeline for various ancient empires, which doesn't line up with secular historical research. Most notably, they claim the Persian Achaemenid Empire existed for 52 years and had 4 kings, while historians say it lasted more than 200 years and had about 13 kings.

The Kuzari argument claims that it's impossible for a whole nation to believe that an important event happened to their ancestors, unless it actually happened. So what do the descendants of the Persians think? Well, in 1971 Iran made huge celebrations for the 2,500 year anniversary of the Achaemenid empire. If they followed the Jewish chronology, they'd have to wait an extra 150 years for that. Clearly, they follow the secular chronology, and would take offense at the claim that their first empire was much less glorious than the records show it was.

So, which one is it? Either Chazal were wrong, or a group of people can in fact be deluded into believing national legends about their ancestors. This is far from the best argument against the Kuzari but it's an interesting point that I haven't seen anyone bring up.