“The recent escalation between Israel and Hamas has sent shockwaves across the globe, igniting debates and raising critical questions about the stability of the Middle East and its far-reaching consequences for international security”. In this exclusive interview, we delve into these crucial matters with Dr. Michael Rubin, a preeminent authority on the region, whose insights are both timely and essential. A senior fellow at the American Enterprise Institute and Director of Policy Analysis at the Middle East Forum, Dr. Rubin brings to the table a unique blend of academic rigor and firsthand experience.

Imagine a scholar who has not only studied the Middle East from afar but has lived and breathed its complexities, from post-revolution Iran to pre- and post-war Iraq, and even spent time with the Taliban before 9/11. This unique perspective allows him to dissect the current crisis with unparalleled clarity. For over a decade, he educated US Navy and Marine units on the region’s volatile dynamics, preparing them for the realities they faced.

His extensive body of work, including acclaimed books like “Seven Pillars: What Really Causes Instability in the Middle East?” and “Kurdistan Rising,” demonstrates his deep understanding of the forces at play. In this exclusive interview, Dr. Rubin provides a vital analysis of the roots of Israel-Hamas conflict and its implications for global security, its potential for escalation, and the ripple effects it may have on international relations.

Arun Anand: The Middle East has changed, after the Israel-Hamas conflict started or the Gaza war started from October 7th, 2023. So, has the Middle East changed permanently and what has actually changed there? What are its implications for global security?

Dr. Michael Rubin: Well, I think the Middle East has changed, though not necessarily permanently.

When we look at what happened, what has changed has less to do with the Palestinians and more with the temporary of defeat of Hezbollah and the simultaneous shedding of stigmas that prevented direct Iran-Israel conflict. Certainly, Israel and the Islamic Republic of Iran defined themselves as adversaries but preferred to probe each other by proxy. The red lines that existed prevented a slippery slope to war. Such a broader Iran-Israel war is now a real danger.

I happen to believe, however, that the red lines that prevented a direct Israel-Iran war had a dark side: Artificial restraint protected protagonists from accountability for their actions. If aggressors like the ayatollahs in Iran faced direct accountability for their choices and sponsorship of terror, perhaps the Middle East could have avoided a descent into broader conflict.

But when it comes to the question that has the Middle East really, really changed? Look, there are several things we don’t know. Is Hamas going to rebuild? Is Hezbollah going to be rebuilt? There’s a new president and a new prime minister in Lebanon who are antagonistic to Hezbollah. But the real position, which is yet to be filled, is the governor of the central Bank of Lebanon, because that is how Hezbollah makes and launders its money.

In the United States, the Trump administration does not yet have an eye on the details of the Central Bank of Lebanon’s leadership. Traditionally, the U.S. Treasury Department signs off on the central bank governor of Lebanon.

But as we look ahead, what really is going to confirm change or not confirm change is the succession in the region. What happens when the Ayatollah Ali Khamenei dies? He’s nearly 86 years old now. What happens when Mahmoud Abbas, the chairman of the Palestinian Authority, who’s in the 20th year of his four-year presidential term and is 89 years old, dies. What’s going to happen to the Palestinian Authority then? Will Hamas take it over?

What’s going to happen in Syria? Is Ahmed al-Sharaa really going to last? There’s a lot of questioning, in Washington, in Europe, in Turkey about whether Ahmed Al Sharaa is as strong as he likes to project. So, as we always say, there’s a lot more unknowns than there are known ones right now.

Arun Anand: We have seen the way Iran, used to hold a comparatively much stronger position, at least in terms of their military might before, Israel kind of, you know, handled them directly. And the way Hezbollah was destroyed by, the Israeli forces, do you see a weakening of Iran in the Islamic world? what’s your assessment? Can Hezbollah be regrouped? Can it again emerge from the kind of blows it has received from Israeli Defense Forces?

Dr. Michael Rubin: These are great questions. And the fact of the matter is that Iran has certainly had its position weakened, at least relative to Turkey, which seems to be on the rise. And, of course, if Turkey is the stronger country, if it professes to be the leader of the Islamic world, that’s a problem for India as well, because Turkey can be much more aggressive, especially with regard to Pakistan occupied Kashmir. So, I mean, certainly we see a repositioning and a competition between, between Turkey and Iran. But I want to pull back. I’m not sure whether Iran is as weak as people say, just because it had 293 out of 300 drones and missiles shot down by Israel. While many in Israel and the United States said the downing of most of the Iranian barrage showed the defense capability of Israel, consider if any of those seven missiles had biological, chemical or radiological warheads: Would people really be saying that this is such a triumph of deterrence? The fact of the matter is that seven out of 300 got through, at least on the first........

© Blitz