I've been reading a bit about the Sasanians and their wars with the Roman Empire, and from time to time I see references to an ambition to restore the frontiers of old Achaemenid Persia, which seems sort of natural, the Achaemenids being the greatest empire of its time and all.
Then, reading a bit of the Cambridge History of Iran, they say no primary source of the Sasanian period mentions the Achaemenids, somewhat contradicting the idea of an Achaemenid restoration project. CHoI then goes to say that the Sasanians didn't know about the old persian empire, which seems silly (even if no persian text about them existed the Sasanians should have had access to Greek sources, and surely some folk tales and legends existed about Cyrus and Darius at least).
And then I learn that some guy called Iraj Darayee (supposedly a professor at UCLA, but I'm not even american so I don't know) says that the Sasanians deliberately omitted the existence of the Achaemenids, because insecurities or something.
What's the deal then?
Long story short, no. Slightly longer story: they retained a memory of Daryaee (Darius III) and Alaksandar-i Hromayig (Alexander the "Roman"), which we can find in e.g. the Karnamag-i Ardashir, which asserts that the Sasanian kings were descendants of "the line of Daryaee". It is possible that they learned some of this from the West.
The Šah Namah, based on the older Middle Persian Xwaday-Namag, includes a faint memory of the Achaemenids as the Kayanids, where it has been argued that for example aspects of Artaxerxes II was retained in one of the Kayanids. However, names don't match up, so this is clearly at best a faint "epic" memory. This may also be indicated by Ardašir and Šapur's vague allusion to their ahenag/hasenag, or "forebears".
In Late Antiquity, the by far most popular Iranian ruler to trace your descent to was the now-obscure Arshak, founder of the principality that was to become the Parthian or Arsacid Empire in the mid-3rd century BC. One Classical source asserts Arshak took this ruler name to connect himself to Artaxerxes II (whose birthname was Arshaka), and it is possible that they were conflated in Iranian epic, as Artaxerxes II was the longest-reigning and perhaps most powerful Achaemenid ruler, whereas Arshak only established a modest principality; only many generations later would Mithridates and others conquer the entire Seleucid Empire.
"History" as an Iranian genre might simply not have existed prior to the latter half of the Sasanian era, with oral epic and transmission of religious texts, poetry, etc, dominating.
As an aside, it may be the case that Cyrus the Great was forgotten pretty quickly in the East, as Darius I was a usurper who had one or both of Cyrus' sons assassinated, forged a family link, and orchestrated a massive propaganda campaign to legitimize his rule and present himself as a far more accomplished ruler than his predecessors. Given his shaping the narrative and his administrative reforms, he might in a sense be considered the true founder of the Achaemenid Empire.
I assume you mean Touraj Daryaee, by the way? He's generally considered an authority, but I don't know what he says on this exact point (I'm going pattly off MR Shayegan + some primary sources). I can check one of his books I have tomorrow.