In an exclusive interview with India Today, Michael Rubin, a former Pentagon official and senior fellow at the American Enterprise Institute, discussed the ongoing Israel-Iran conflict, whether the US will join the conflict or not, and more.
00:00Joining me now, another special guest, Michael Rubin joins me from Washington, D.C., former
00:06Pentagon official and senior fellow, American Enterprise Institute.
00:10He's worked extensively on the Middle East.
00:12I appreciate you joining us, Mr. Rubin.
00:15What are you making of this conflict as it now enters its second week?
00:20Is it inevitable that sooner or later the United States will join this conflict?
00:24Well, at the very least, the United States is providing aerial refueling to the Israelis,
00:35it appears, because the Israelis need to fuel both going into Iran and returning from Iran.
00:43Remember, while Israel had struck at Iraq before, Iran is four times the size of Iraq.
00:51Then, on everyone's mind is whether the United States will use its B-2 bombers to attack the
00:58underground nuclear facility at Fordow.
01:02While there's a debate in Washington that the United States shouldn't get involved and do that,
01:08the reality is that if the war ends and Fordow still remains in place, Iran will reconstitute
01:16its nuclear program quickly, simply because even if they don't do it themselves, China, Russia,
01:25maybe even Turkey and Pakistan will help them do so.
01:29So do you think, Michael Rubin, that pressure is gradually building on Trump to just dive in?
01:36Or is opinion still divided, particularly based on past experiences of United States intervening
01:43in conflicts of this nature in West Asia and Middle East in particular?
01:51Well, no one is talking about putting American forces on the ground.
01:56So, yes, American debate is polarized, but it's always polarized before the United States goes into conflict.
02:03But the issue then becomes whether President Donald Trump is going to use his role as president
02:11to make a decision.
02:13I very much suspect he will.
02:16But here is a President, Michael Rubin, who came into office in January this year promising to end all wars.
02:22He claimed he was the peacemaker.
02:24And what are we seeing instead?
02:26The world is on the precipice of another war and Trump could well lead the United States into another conflict.
02:32So how are we to read Donald Trump's claim to be a peacemaker and yet being unable to stop wars and his flip-flops?
02:45Well, yes, first of all, historically, every U.S. president since George H.W. Bush in the 1990s had his or in the 1980s and early 1990s
03:03had his foreign policy legacy defined by the crisis, which no one saw coming during the campaign.
03:11So for George H.W. Bush, it was Iraq's invasion of Kuwait.
03:16For Bill Clinton, it was the wars in the Balkans.
03:18For George W. Bush, it was 9-11, Afghanistan and Iraq, and so forth.
03:23The point is, no president gets held to the promises or the intent which he made during his campaign
03:30because the realities of the world intercede.
03:35President Donald Trump is going to need to make a decision.
03:38Look, the timeline wasn't Donald Trump's.
03:42We now know that, of course, in April 2024 and October 2024, Iran and Israel exchanged missile attacks.
03:52We know that Israel at the time attacked Iran's early warning systems and its anti-aircraft systems as well.
04:00Iran was rebuilding those capabilities.
04:02That's why Israeli Prime Minister Bibi Netanyahu wanted to attack now, because the window of opportunity was rapidly closing.
04:11That's not on Donald Trump.
04:13That's on Bibi Netanyahu.
04:15But once we start, Donald Trump talks about protecting American interests.
04:19He needs to ask whether showing displeasure towards Israel is a greater U.S. interest
04:25than allowing Iran to reconstitute its nuclear program.
04:29I don't think that's a question that the president is going to choose wrong on.
04:34But Michael Rubin, is this any more about Iran's nuclear plan?
04:39Or with every passing day, is this becoming about so-called regime change, about toppling the government in Iran?
04:46Bibi Netanyahu is saying it far more openly now than he did on day one.
04:51His defense minister has gone as far as calling Khamenei a modern-day Hitler who must not exist.
04:56Trump claims he knows where the supreme leader is.
04:59He can take him out, but won't take him out now.
05:01Is this still posturing to get Iran to the negotiating table?
05:06Or is Israel and America serious about effecting a regime change in Iran?
05:12Yeah, look, first of all, in any coalition, if you want to call it that, different countries have different interests.
05:25Israel has gone beyond just trying to eradicate the nuclear program, and they are quite openly going for regime change.
05:32This is why, for example, the Israelis struck the national police headquarters, and they struck the surveillance video farm, the computer center for the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps surveillance operation.
05:47What they're trying to do is eliminate any sort of means of repression that the Iranians would use against Iran's own people, hoping that the Iranian people will rise up.
06:00That hasn't happened yet, but I suspect it will become a little bit more inevitable.
06:06At the same time, look, Donald Trump has said Iran needs to eliminate its nuclear program.
06:12Some people may say that's unrealistic, but remember Ayatollah Khomeini's speech from July 21st, 1988, in which he announced the end of the Iran-Iraq war, short of Iran achieving its goals.
06:28What Ayatollah Khomeini said at the time was, it's like drinking from a chalice of poison, but I have no choice but to drink from this cup if I want the Islamic Republic to survive.
06:39When Trump is talking about negotiations, he's essentially telling Khomeini that he must drink from a chalice of poison.
06:48The open question then is whether Khomeini can survive at this point if he gives up his nuclear program because his own people may turn on him.
06:56The reason I asked you that, Michael Rubin, is that the United States has a history of triggering only further chaos whenever it tries to effect so-called regime changes.
07:07Look at what happened in Iraq, for instance, post-Saddam Hussein.
07:11If tomorrow Khomeini or the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps are removed from positions of power, who knows who comes in their place?
07:17It could be even more dangerous.
07:19Well, first of all, I would argue that Iraq today is a lot better than Iraq under Saddam Hussein.
07:27But putting that aside, the fact of the matter is, it is a big question.
07:32And this is where I'm frustrated with the United States, with India, with Europe, and with other countries.
07:39We can sit on the sidelines and wring our hands.
07:42But the question is, what are we doing to sort of skew the outcome to the most favorable scenario?
07:50Look, everyone would like for a peaceful, democratic Iran to exist.
07:55That's likely not going to be the outcome.
07:58The big problem is the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps.
08:00The question then becomes, is the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, because they have the weaponry and they have the resources, going to establish a military dictatorship, perhaps like Egypt's military dictatorship, which is at peace with itself, at peace with its neighbors, generally doesn't kill minorities?
08:20Or are they going to be an ideological dictatorship?
08:24What can we do to prevent that worst possible outcome?
08:26Remember, war represents the failure of diplomacy, but war also creates diplomatic opportunities.
08:34We saw this after 1991 and the liberation of Kuwait, where we had the Madrid Conference, where the Syrians, the Palestinians, and the Israelis sat together for the first time because of the defeat of Saddam Hussein in that war.
08:48What are we doing to suggest that if Ayatollah Khamenei falls, that we can have new diplomatic opportunities?
08:54Perhaps even the so-called Cyrus Accords, which would see the resumption of peace between Israel and Iran like they had before 1979.
09:04I know this is speculative as to what lies ahead, but there are huge implications involved, huge stakes in this conflict spreading.
09:13What, according to you, therefore, Michael, is the most likely outcome?
09:16Do you see a prolonged, intensifying conflict now, or a short operation, particularly if the U.S. enters with its B-2 bombs?
09:28Well, look, I think this war is going to end in two ways.
09:33One, when Fordow is hit.
09:36That's the underground nuclear facility which no country with a peaceful energy program needs to have.
09:43The second issue is if Ayatollah Khamenei dies.
09:47The reason why no one wants to kill Khamenei is what you're saying now.
09:51They need him to actually surrender in favor of a new council to prevent a vacuum from being formed.
09:59The other issue that we need to recognize is when this war does end, if Iran forfeits its nuclear program,
10:07it's going to mean shipping out all of Iran's nuclear material.
10:12How is that going to happen, and who is going to do that?
10:16Is it going to be the Americans or the Israelis?
10:19Probably not.
10:21Could India have a role, given that India is trusted by both sides?
10:25Could India be the country that is charged with shipping out through Chabahar or JASC all of Iran's nuclear material?
10:33That's a question which I think New Delhi should be asking.
10:36I'll get the Indian response in a moment, but in conclusion, Michael Rubin, put on your forecaster's hat, if I may say so, your pundit hat.
10:48Are we more likely or not in the next 48 hours to see that big decision being taken by Donald Trump, whether to go into Iran or not?
10:58Look, I'm not a crystal ball.
11:04I'm a historian, so I get paid to predict the past, and my critics would say I only get that right about half the time.
11:10It's a foolish job to try to predict Donald Trump.
11:15But I do think, with our forces in the region, that we are going to see the United States involved with air power, but in no other mechanism.
11:26One of the other interesting issues, of course, is the latest satellite images from the Al-Udeid Air Base in Qatar show that there's absolutely no U.S. aircraft on the ground there.
11:39Where have they all gone?
11:40It shows that the United States is preparing, preemptively, to defend itself and its material and its men against retaliation.
11:49That itself suggests that perhaps the United States is going to do something.
11:55Very interesting, Michael Rubin, and insightful as ever.
11:58Always a pleasure talking to you.
12:00Thank you so much for joining me there from Washington, D.C.
