Middle East Forum Director of Policy Analysis Michael Rubin joins Fox News to assess Iran’s internal dynamics and strategic position amid escalating tensions. Rubin explains that the regime is increasingly fragmented, with competing factions and uncertainty surrounding central leadership, while the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps appears to hold decisive influence. He argues that Tehran continues to use maritime aggression and negotiation tactics to extract concessions, but faces mounting structural pressures. Among the most significant is a vulnerability in its energy sector: Iran’s oil production depends on imported gasoline to maintain pressure in aging fields, meaning sustained disruption could severely constrain output. Together, these dynamics suggest that time may be working against the regime as it navigates both internal instability and external pressure.
HOST: Joining me now to discuss is Michael Rubin, senior fellow at the American Enterprise Institute and former Pentagon official. Michael, thanks for being with us here on LiveNOW from Fox.
RUBIN: Thank you for having me, Alexandra.
HOST: Let’s start here. The IRGC seizing two ships today in the strait — what is the signal?
RUBIN: The signal is that the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps still has the ability to play a spoiler role. Another signal is that if there are going to be negotiations, the Iranians are going to try to extort concessions.
But before we engage in too much self-flagellation and assume that Iran is seizing ships because of U.S. actions, let’s remember — the Iranians were seizing ships before February 28th. Their assaults on freedom of navigation are quite frequent.
I don’t think any outside analyst should play into Iranian propaganda on this.
HOST: The ceasefire was extended yesterday indefinitely. President Trump says until Iran comes back with a unified proposal. The question now is: who in Iran has the power to make that unified proposal?
You’ve written extensively about what is left of the regime in your latest article.
RUBIN: Well, there are several different factions that we need to look at.
What is clear is that the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps appears to be on top. The Iranian president is rumored to be under house arrest. The Supreme Leader hasn’t been seen since the war began, and there are rumors that he may not even be alive — or, if he is, that he may be incapacitated.
Then you have competing figures. You have leadership tied to the IRGC, political actors, and security officials all jockeying for influence.
What Donald Trump is doing — and quite wisely — is saying that if Iran is going to be serious about negotiations, it needs to present a unified proposal. That prevents a situation where one faction makes a concession, only for another faction to come in and demand more.
HOST: You’ve said regime change requires fracturing the Guard. In your view, what does it take to dismantle the IRGC?
RUBIN: The important thing to understand is that for decades we’ve talked about Iranian politics as a dichotomy between hardliners and reformists. But in reality, that’s not the full picture.
The IRGC is its own force, and it’s not homogeneous.
Some people join the IRGC for the privileges — better pay, better benefits, greater access to resources — not necessarily out of ideological commitment.
But others are deeply indoctrinated. They’re brought in from a young age through IRGC-affiliated institutions, programs, and universities. Those individuals are often true believers.
When pressure increases — especially during conflict — those who joined for the benefits may not be willing to sacrifice for the regime. They may step back. Meanwhile, the more ideologically committed remain.
That kind of internal fracturing is important. We’ve seen similar dynamics before. For example, when Hezbollah shifted salaries from dollars to Lebanese pounds during sanctions, many members simply left because the currency had lost value.
That’s the kind of pressure that can weaken these organizations from within.
HOST: Let’s talk about the economic side. Is the U.S. blockade of Iranian ships and ports effectively choking off their economic abilities? Is that part of the strategy?
RUBIN: Absolutely. The blockade is part of the strategy, and the timing works in our favor.
Iran exports oil — we all know that. But what many people don’t realize is that Iran also has to import a significant amount of its gasoline.
And gasoline isn’t just used for automobiles. It’s injected into oil fields to maintain pressure and enable extraction.
So if Iran cannot import gasoline, it cannot extract oil to sell.
That creates a cascading problem. Iran may only have a limited window — potentially as little as a week — before it has to begin shutting down oil fields. And once that happens, it can cause permanent damage.
The clock is ticking — not on the United States, but on Iran.
HOST: Let’s continue on the ceasefire extension. The Associated Press is reporting that Iran has acknowledged the extension but won’t commit yet to another round of diplomatic talks. Why the delay?
RUBIN: This is all about positioning and strategy.
Iran is trying to run down the clock and redefine what “successful diplomacy” means. Instead of success being measured by outcomes — ending nuclear ambitions, ending support for terrorism — they want success to be defined as simply continuing negotiations.
We’ve seen this before in diplomacy with other regimes. The process becomes the goal, rather than the outcome.
That’s something the United States needs to avoid.
HOST: You mentioned perception earlier. What does Iran’s internal division tell you about how it may respond next?
RUBIN: One of the key questions is: who is actually speaking for Iran?
We haven’t seen the Supreme Leader, but we’ve seen statements issued in his name. That raises real questions about who is writing those statements and who is actually in charge.
Different factions may be competing to claim authority, even invoking the legitimacy of leadership that may not be fully functional.
That kind of uncertainty complicates any negotiation.
HOST: Can Pakistan play a role in bringing Iran back to the table?
RUBIN: I’m skeptical of Pakistan as a mediator.
Historically, Pakistan has acted in ways that run counter to U.S. interests. More broadly, you don’t want a mediator that benefits from your failure.
That applies not only to Pakistan, but also to other potential mediators like Qatar or Turkey, which may have their own agendas.
HOST: This situation is very dynamic. What are you watching in the next 24 to 48 hours?
RUBIN: In the near term, I expect Iran to escalate rhetorically and attempt to project defiance as pressure builds.
Longer term, we need to think about securing weapons stockpiles across Iran’s provinces. Each region has IRGC units, and if the system weakens, there’s a risk those weapons could disperse across the region.
HOST: Michael Rubin, senior fellow at the American Enterprise Institute and former Pentagon official — thank you for your insight and analysis here on LiveNOW from Fox.
