Michael Rubin, a resident scholar at the American
Enterprise Institute and an adviser on Iran and Iraq in the Donald
Rumsfeld Pentagon, is an outspoken and sometimes controversial proponent of U.S. intervention
in the Middle East and other global hotspots. Cited by the Washington Post's Robin Wright
in August 2007 as a leading advocate, along with the likes of neoconservative progenitor Norman
Podhoretz, for intervention in Iran, Rubin has repeatedly argued that in order to succeed in
Iraq the United States must take on Tehran (Washington Post, August 9, 2007). Arguing in
a March 2007 speech at the University of Haifa that " U.S. and Iranian interests in Iraq are
diametrically opposed, and will continue to be until one side wins and the other loses," Rubin
has suggested a number of ways of taking on leaders like Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, including
assassination. In an August 28, 2006 National Review article, Rubin wrote: "If a single
bullet or bomb could forestall a far bloodier application of force, would it not be irresponsible
to fail to consider that option—especially when the leaders of both Iran and North Korea threaten
to use nuclear weapons and call for the destruction of both regional democracies and the United States?"
According to his AEI bio page, Rubin's research areas at the institute include "domestic politics
in Iran, Iraq, and Turkey; Kurdish society; and Arab democracy." A frequent commentator on the
state of the Iraq War, Rubin said during a July 24, 2006 AEI discussion on "The Future of Iraqi
Armed Forces": "Many people have looked at the current situation in Iraq as indicative of
the failure of democracy. I'd argue that that is unfair and that what it's really indicative of is
the failure of counter-terror policy."
Along with many of his AEI colleagues—including Michael
Ledeen and Danielle Pletka—Rubin
has, since his departure from his position in the Bush administration as staff adviser, frequently
criticized Bush administration foreign policy for straying from its hardline, non-diplomatic track
since the Iraq War began unraveling. In an interview with Time magazine, Rubin argued that
efforts to negotiate with Iran would simply bolster the regime's position: "The very act of
sitting down with them recognizes them" (May 22, 2006).
"The cost of any military strike on Iran would be high, although not as high as the cost of the
Islamic Republic gaining nuclear weapons," says Rubin. "The Bush administration is paying
the price for more than five years without a cogent, coordinated Iran policy. Each passing day limits
policy options. Engaging the regime will preserve the problem, not eliminate it. Only when the regime
is accountable to the Iranian people can there be a peaceful solution. To do this requires targeted
sanctions—freezing assets and travel bans—on regime officials, coupled with augmented and expedited
investment in independent rather than government-licensed civil society, labor unions, and media. It
may be too late, but it would be irresponsible not to try" (Wall Street Journal, April
14, 2006).
Rubin cautions that U.S.-government aid shouldn't go to "reformers" who are working within
the system but rather to "the democrats" or "freedom seekers." In an interview
with National Review Online, he said: "Reformists are part and parcel of the regime and
do not speak for the democrats" (National Review Online, April 25, 2006).
According to Rubin: "The real threat isn't that Iran will drop a nuclear weapon on Washington,
but rather that with a nuclear deterrent, its leadership will become so overconfident that it will
lash out with conventional terrorism."
In an August 7, 2007 editorial, Rubin took aim at the Bush administration, this time for its dealings
with Turkey. Rubin charged that the administration had "flip-flopped" in its dealings with "terrorists," in
this case the Kurdistan Workers Party, which U.S. forces have not targeted despite promises to Turkey
to do so. He wrote: " President George W. Bush's failure to uphold an assurance to Turkish officials
that the United States would take action against the Kurdistan Workers Party (PKK), a terrorist group,
is merely the latest in a series of broken promises. Bush has backtracked on both the philosophical
underpinnings of his foreign policy as well as individual promises to specific nations and world leaders.
The president's record of broken promises will haunt future administrations and mar Bush's foreign
policy legacy."
Like many of his neoconservative colleagues, Rubin's political trajectory began on the left. He highlighted
his liberal background in a National Review Online interview, saying: "I'm not just at
AEI, neocon, Zionist conspiracy central, but I was also Quaker-educated for 14 years and spent one
summer interning for a Democrat on Capitol Hill funded by a Congressional Black Caucus Foundation summer
fellowship. Let Mother Jones go nuts with that wire diagram."
In a May 2004 article titled "You Must be Likud!" published by National Review Online ,
Rubin criticized the "creeping anti-Semitism in the current discourse," citing with approval Max
Boot's observation: "If neocons were agents of Likud, they would have advocated an invasion
not of Iraq or Afghanistan but of Iran, which Israel considers to be the biggest threat to its security."
At the start of the second George W. Bush administration, Rubin commended the president for being
sincere in his commitment to "freedom, liberty, and democracy." But "the rank-and-file
of not only the CIA but also of the State Department and even many in the Pentagon are hostile to the
president's Middle East policies." Writing in the Jewish magazine The Forward, Rubin predicted
that George W. Bush's second-term administration would "replicate the mistakes of the first. The
State Department will carry the day with a renewed effort to engage, and the Islamic Republic will
be just as willing to accede" (The Forward, January 28, 2005).
In April 2006 Rubin, along with other prominent neoconservatives, participated in a smear campaign
against respected blogger and University of Michigan professor Juan Cole, who was being considered
for a tenured position at Yale, Rubin's alma mater. Writing in the Yale Daily News, Rubin hinted
that Cole's analysis of the Middle East might be skewed by anti-Semitism. "While Cole condemns
anti-Semitism," wrote Rubin, "he accuses prominent Jewish-American officials of having dual
loyalties, a frequent anti-Semitic refrain. That he accuses Jewish Americans of using 'the Pentagon
as Israel's Gurkha regiment' is unfortunate" (Yale Daily News, April 18, 2006). On June
1, 2006, Yale's Senior Appointments Committee announced that it had rejected Cole's nomination, despite
three other committees having already accepted it. Several observers were convinced that the rejection
was a direct result of the accusations against Cole. "I'm saddened and distressed by the news," said
John Merriman, a Yale history professor. "I love this place. But I haven't seen something like
this happen at Yale before. In this case, academic integrity clearly has been trumped by politics" (Nation, July 3, 2006).
Rubin's reputation as a scholar took a hit in early 2006 when the New York Times revealed that
he had reviewed propaganda articles that had been produced for distribution to the media by the PR
firm Lincoln Group, which had been hired by the Pentagon. According to the Times, Lincoln Group "paid
Iraqi newspapers to print positive articles written by American soldiers" (New York Times,
January 2, 2006). When first asked a month earlier by the Times about Lincoln's contract with
the Pentagon, Rubin said: "I'm not surprised this goes on. Informational operations are part of
any military campaign. Especially in an atmosphere where terrorists and insurgents—replete with oil
boom cash—do the same. We need an even playing field, but cannot fight with both hands tied behind
our backs" (New York Times, December 1, 2005). What Rubin didn't mention to the Times in
December was that he had given the Lincoln Group feedback on its work. When later asked by the Times about
his role in the Lincoln affair, Rubin admitted: "I visited Camp Victory and looked over some of
their proposals or products and commented on their ideas. I am not nor have I been an employee of the
Lincoln Group. I do not receive a salary from them" (New York Times, January 2, 2006).
According to retired Air Force Lt. Col. Karen Kwiatkowski, who worked briefly in 2002 and 2003 in
the Pentagon's directorate for Near East and South Asian Affairs (NESA), an office overseen by William
Luti and whose Iraq desk eventually became the Office
of Special Plans, Rubin was one of a number of researchers from the Washington
Institute for Near East Policy (WINEP) and other like-minded, pro-Israel think tanks who were
brought in to staff the Iraq desk. When she volunteered to take a job in the NESA directorate, writes
Kwiatkowski, she "didn't realize that the expertise on Middle East policy was not only being removed,
but was also being exchanged for that from various agenda-bearing think tanks, including the Middle
East Media Research Institute, the Washington Institute for Near East Policy, and the Jewish
Institute for National Security Affairs. Interestingly, the office director billet stayed vacant
the whole time I was there. That vacancy and the long-term absence of real regional understanding to
inform defense policymakers in the Pentagon explains a great deal about the neoconservative approach
on the Middle East and the disastrous mistakes made in Washington and in Iraq in the past two years" (Salon.com,
March 10, 2004).
After his stint working for the government, which also included serving briefly as a political adviser
to the Coalition Provisional Authority, Rubin returned to the neoconservative think tank community,
resuming his associations with AEI, the Middle
East Forum, and WINEP. Rubin serves as editor of Middle East Quarterly, which is co-published
by the Middle East Forum and the U.S. Committee
for a Free Lebanon.
In her War and Piece blog, Laura Rozen wrote that "like Ledeen, Rubin straddles the worlds of
government consulting, academic-think tank-dom, and journalism-advocacy on behalf of neocon causes.
Rubin has spent the past few years as a consultant to the Pentagon's Office of Special Plans and then
the Office of the Secretary of Defense (read: Doug
Feith), and more recently has served as a political adviser to the Coalition Provisional Authority
in Iraq ... It will be interesting to see where Rubin's combination of consulting for neocon officials
at the Pentagon, and advocacy on behalf of their pet causes at AEI and in the New Republic and
other media, will lead him. He certainly seems to be being carefully groomed for something special
over at AEI" (War and Piece, April 24, 2004).
|
Affiliations
Middle East Forum: Middle East Intelligence Bulletin Editorial Board Member; Iran, Iraq, and Kurdish Expert; Middle East Quarterly, Editor (2004-present)
Middle East Forum Lebanon Study Group: Signatory
American Enterprise Institute: Resident Scholar
Council on Foreign Relations: International Affairs Fellow (2002-2003)
Carnegie Council for Ethics and International Affairs: Fellowship Recipient (2000-2001)
U.S. Committee for a Free Lebanon: Former Golden Circle Member
Leonard Davis Institute for International Relations: Visiting Fellow
Washington Institute for Near East Policy: Soref Fellow (1999-2000)
Yale University: Lecturer (1999-2000)
Hebrew University: Lecturer (2001-2002)
Sulaymani University: (Iraqi Kurdistan) Lecturer (2000-2001)
Salahuddin University: (Iraqi Kurdistan) Lecturer (2000-2001)
Government Service
Office of the Secretary of Defense: Staff Adviser for Iran and Iraq and Member of Coalition Provisional Authority in Iraq (2002-2004)
Pentagon Office of Special Plans: Iran/Iraq Adviser (2002-2004)
Education
Yale University: B.S. in biology; M.A. in history; Ph.D. in history
|
