Host:
And to give us his take on the raging war in West Asia, as distinguished foreign policy analyst and former diplomat from Singapore, I’m privileged to be joined by Professor Kishore Mahbubani. Appreciate your joining us there, professor. Give us your take on what you’re seeing unfolding in West Asia, particularly since you’ve written extensively about how this was to be the Asian Century.

Kishore Mahbubani:
Well, there’s only one word that describes what is happening in the Gulf today: the word is madness. Because this war does not serve anybody’s long-term interests. This is a war that’s completely unnecessary. This is a war that could have been avoided. And frankly, it is doing a lot of damage beyond the Gulf.

As you know, the countries of the Gulf today — nobody can fly to Dubai or Abu Dhabi or Doha today. And beyond that, almost every country in the world is affected by the volatility that is playing out in stock markets and oil prices. And so, clearly, what the rest of the world needs to do is to send a message to the parties involved saying, please stop this. This is harming you and this is harming us.

Host:
You’re saying that the rest of the world needs to send a message to the parties involved. But there’s an asymmetry of power here. You’ve got the United States with all the hard power, its military machine, aided by Israel, versus Iran. Do you believe that, therefore, in this asymmetrical war, who is going to listen to the world? Do you believe that this is the ultimate exercise of unilateralism, some would say, on the part of the United States in this Trumpian era?

Kishore Mahbubani:
Just now I heard you say that this is a war by the United States aided by Israel. Actually, this is a war started by Israel with the aid of the United States. We have to be technically correct about who is actually guiding this war. And tell my American friends and my Israeli friends that this is not a war that serves long-term American interests, and this is not a war that serves long-term Israeli interests either.

As you know, I actually had the pleasure and honor of working with Prime Minister Bibi Netanyahu of Israel when he was ambassador of Israel to the UN in the 1980s, and I was the ambassador of Singapore to the UN in the 1980s. And I remember telling him directly, personally, as a friend of Israel, that at some point in time, Israel must find a way of coming to peace with its neighbors. And that’s the direction I thought we were heading in the region. And suddenly, the attacks by Hamas on Israel were heinous and terrible and should be condemned, and there should have been a strong response to that.

But after that, I think you still have to find a way of securing long-term peace. And when you say maybe nobody’s listening now, but as friends — I tell my Israeli friends, if I see you walking towards a cliff, do I say keep walking, or do I say stop? And I tell my Israeli friends, you have to stop. You cannot keep on fighting your neighbors forever.

Host:
Mm-hmm. And they’ve got — you’re telling your Israeli friends to stop. But Israel will — but, Professor, Israel will say this is an existential threat. Israel claims — your friend Netanyahu from the 1980s claims — that Iran poses an existential threat. A nuclearized Iran in the future poses an existential threat, particularly because Iran has used its terror militias — Hamas, Hezbollah, Houthis — to target Israel.

Kishore Mahbubani:
Well, President Trump announced after the previous bombing of Iran in October last year that the Iranian nuclear facilities had been destroyed. President Trump said that. And most knowledgeable people who follow this very closely, much more closely than I do, say that Iran is very far away from a bomb. And I agree that we should stop Iran from having a bomb. But there are ways and means of carrying out fairly intrusive inspections by the international community that can stop Iran from having a bomb.

Host:
But the question is, who is going to stop a Donald Trump? If Donald Trump believes or deludes himself and the world to believe that Iran was going ahead with the nuclear bomb, who is going to stop a Donald Trump? I come back to it: American hard power, sir. For the longest time, we thought that the Chinese were using economic power to expand their influence. The Americans are trying to reassert themselves using hard power. Do you believe that America is also on a cliff leading to nowhere, a war without a strategy?

Kishore Mahbubani:
I can tell you that President Trump is a rational person. There’s a reason why he got reelected a second time. He understands politics very well. And if the opinion polls show that he is going to win by carrying on with this war, he will carry on with the war. But if the opinion polls show, and if the stock markets show, and if the oil markets show, and if the bond markets show that there’s too much uncertainty that’s bad for the United States, I guarantee you that he’ll stop the war. He is not suicidal. He’s careful and he’s rational.

And so far, the war hasn’t cost the United States a lot. But if this carries on at this rate, this kind of volatility — all the knowledgeable people tell me that if the oil prices keep going up and if inflation comes back, that would be bad for President Trump and his administration. So he understands the constraints that he faces, and I think he doesn’t want the war to carry on forever.

Host:
Does Benjamin Netanyahu face similar constraints? Or does he believe that this is his moment where he wants to establish Israel’s dominance in a way over West Asia, just completely obliterate the Iranian machine and thereby establish Israeli supremacy in West Asia?

Kishore Mahbubani:
I’m sure you know Tom Friedman, the famous New York Times columnist. If you read Tom Friedman’s writings, he makes it clear that President Bibi Netanyahu has a national agenda. And the national agenda is making sure that Israel is strong and cannot be defeated. And I think that’s a legitimate aspiration on the part of Israel. But he also has a personal agenda. He is afraid that if the war ends and things go back to normal, he then has to face the polls and the courts.

So, as Tom Friedman is saying, he has a personal agenda for keeping the war going. And I find that very sad, because again, as a friend of Israel — and I can tell you in private, many of my Israeli friends agree with me — and they say that having a policy of perpetual hostility with its neighbors is not a formula for long-term peace for Israel. So that’s why I say, we as friends of Israel should try to persuade it that while it is strong and powerful, this is the moment for it to seek peace with its neighbors.

Host:
Do you believe that some of the countries of Asia have any possibility of playing a role in pushing Israel to peace? India, for example, which is now increasingly building a strong defense partnership with Israel.

What role do you see China playing? What role do you see India playing? Or do you believe, at the end of the day, this is a war which will end when Donald Trump wants to end it, it has nothing to do — China has no leverage, India has no leverage, no one has any leverage?

Kishore Mahbubani:
Geopolitics has been around for 2,000 years. And in geopolitics, it’s always a mistake to focus on the short-term results and not think of the long-term consequences. It’s a huge mistake. And it is very clear that the 21st century will be the Asian century. The three top powers in 2050 will be what — you can remember as a CIA formula: China, India, and America. But with the three top powers in 2050, now that’s a world in which Western domination will end. Now, Israel, as you know, relied primarily on support from the United States, in particular, because Europe has been quite weak.

But in the long run, Israel cannot just have one option of support, which is the United States. It’s got to broaden its base and establish good interests and good relations with the other powers too. And you mentioned India’s position: India did send condolences to the Iranian government on the passing away of — President Khamenei? Not President Khamenei, the leader, Ayatollah Khamenei. So, India also is keeping its options open.

Host:
One specific question, Professor Mahbubani. You know China better than most. How is China, in your view, going to see this war as it plays out? Is this war in any way in China’s interest? What is China — is China simply going to sit on the sidelines and watch this play?

Kishore Mahbubani:
I wrote a book called *Has China Won?*, which is right behind me. And every war that the United States fights is a gift to China. And certainly, the Iraq war of 2003 was a massive gift to China, because in the 10 years after 2003, while the United States was bogged down in the Middle East, the Chinese economy kept growing. In fact, if you go back and check, the fastest growth years were after the Iraq war of 2003.

So I can tell you, the Chinese are not happy about this war because, frankly, as the world’s largest trading power, they prefer to see stability. They’d rather see the global economy grow even faster if it can. But they also — geopolitically, they are among the shrewdest long-term players in the world today.

And they know that, in one way or another, all of the countries that are fighting the war today will pay a price for fighting wars. And the countries that avoid fighting wars, as China has done since 1979, are the ones that will grow and thrive. And if you read my book Has China Won ? I actually cite a conversation I had with Henry Kissinger before he died, in which he said the Chinese are among the shrewdest geopolitical players on planet Earth.

Host:
But the question will arise — what we are seeing around us, Professor Mahbubani — is the rupture of the world order, to use the words of the Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney. You’ve got a unilateral America — one day Venezuela, one day diving into Iran. You’ve got Israel which wants to establish its supremacy, as I said, across West Asia. You’ve got China which wants to push ahead as the economic superpower of this age.

Do you believe there is space, therefore, that all that we’ve thought about the world order has to change? And in a sense, we’re seeing conflicts emerge everywhere. You’ve got Russia under Putin also expansionist. This seems to be a chaotic world order. Am I right or wrong?

Kishore Mahbubani:
Prime Minister Mark Carney gave an absolutely brilliant speech in Davos, and I’m glad he gave that speech because he’s right that there has been a rupture. But if you look at the global situation as a whole, which is what your question is about, he was half right. Because immediately after President Trump launched Liberation Day tariffs in April 2025, every major body predicted — whether it was the IMF or the World Economic Forum — that this massive increase in tariffs would mean negative global economic growth, reduction in global trade, and all the major economies would suffer as a result of these tariffs, applied on virtually every country in the world, including India with 50 percent, right?

But look what happened in 2025. At the end of the year, the global economy grew, global trade grew. And Singapore, just to give you one example, which is by far the most trade-dependent economy in the entire world — because our total trade is three to three and a half times the size of our GNP — and even though our per capita income is $94,000, one of the highest in the world, our economy grew by 5% in 2025. So the reason why Mark Carney was half right is that there was a rupture, but the global system actually showed a lot of resilience. And if you look in terms of where the wars are being fought, you will, of course, get the news where the wars are being fought.

And Ukraine has been around for the last four years now. Certainly, the Middle East is always, and unfortunately, at conflict. But most parts of the world, you don’t see the kind of large conflicts. In East Asia, for example, there has been no major war for 50 years. So there are many parts of the world that have decided that having these kinds of large wars is crazy. They don’t benefit you, and you have to figure out a way of staying peaceful and growing your economy. And that’s why, frankly, the Asian countries have continued to do well even in a difficult year of 2025. And by the way, the Indian economy, as you know, also did very well in 2025.

Host:
So let me ask you, in conclusion, what’s your prognosis for what happens next? I know this is a tough question to ask in a changing world order, but how do you see this war ending?

You seem to suggest that it’s only when it starts hurting Donald Trump politically that he will end the war. Do you see an early end, or are we in for a prolonged conflict, given the fact that Iran is unlikely to surrender, certainly in a hurry?
Kishore Mahbubani:
I am actually confident that Iran won’t surrender. Again, the important thing to remember about Iran is not to focus on the current government, but also to remember that the Persian civilization has been one of the greatest civilizations in human history, and the Iranians are tough and proud people. And I remember in the 1980s, they fought a brutal war with Iraq in which they lost over a million people.

But they overcame that — a much more brutal war, eight years. So I do not see a surrender by Iran. But I do see both domestic considerations in the United States, including the fact that midterm elections are coming in November, and I also see the fact that more and more friends of the United States, especially friends in the Gulf like United Arab Emirates, Qatar, all begin to suffer a great deal. They will plead much more strongly with President Trump to stop the war as soon as possible.

And remember, at the end of the day, the one big lesson of history is that wars never solve problems. Wars always lead to subsequent challenges. And at the end of a war, you must always try to find ways of making peace, and making peace in a magnanimous manner. And the reason why World War II was successful was because the Western powers, after they defeated Germany and after they defeated Japan, made sure that these countries were able to grow economically and become strong economically, and therefore have a vested interest in a longer peace.

Host:
On that hopeful note, if I may call it that, Professor Mahbubani, always a pleasure talking to you. And thank you so much for sharing your wisdom on this new world order as we see it here in the 21st century.

Kishore Mahbubani:
Thank you.

Editor: Yangwen