I hold more sympathy for Macbeth than I do for Mubarak. I would be willing to accept that Macbeth was good in nature prior to crossing that line into moral depravity. I think that the fact that Macbeth engages in a severe reflection and recognizes that nothing good will come out of his initial action is where I see some shred of goodness within him. The encouragement of Lady Macbeth compels him to cross the point into no return. From that point, he becomes depraved and loses any semblance of sympathy.
I think that my challenge with Mubarak is on a couple of levels. The first is that I don't see him as morally conflicted as Macbeth. There seems to be enough evidence to suggest that he had some type of role in the assassination of his predecessor, Anwar al- Sadat. It might be conspiratorial, but there seems to be enough innuendo to bring to light that Mubarak does not engage in the sense of agonizing reflection. Rather, he recognizes that with support of many Western nations like the United States, he can gain power. I tend to see this as individualistic in nature. At the same time, I am not sure Suzanne Mubarak operated as a Lady Macbeth figure. She dd not seem to operate in that realm at the time that Mubarak was ascending power in the early 1980s. There is little evidence or even chatter to suggest that she was the motivating force behind his potential participation in the assassination of Sadat. At the same time, I think that the former First Lady became more of an adviser when it came to the potential political aspirations of their son, Gamal. Outside of that, her political footprint is not one that is on the same level as Lady Macbeth. Given this, I am less likely to see Mubarak as being pushed into tyranny by his wife.