Amos Hochstein on Iran protests: Just taking one person out won't be the solution

Iran Protests, Geopolitical Strategy & Oil Prices: A Discussion with Amos Hochstein

Key Concepts:

• Iranian Protests (2023): Current widespread protests in Iran, triggered by economic factors and perceived regime oppression.
• Regime Collapse/Stability: Analysis of the potential for regime change in Iran and the factors influencing its likelihood.
• US Policy Options (Iran): Discussion of potential US responses to the Iranian protests, including support for protestors and potential military intervention.
• Venezuela Scenario: Comparison of the situation in Iran to the attempted regime change in Venezuela.
• Greenland & Geopolitics: Debate surrounding President Trump’s statements regarding Greenland, Russia, China, and NATO.
• Oil Price Dynamics: Analysis of current oil price trends, the impact of Venezuelan and Iranian instability, and the political implications of lower oil prices.
• IRGC & Basij: Key Iranian military and paramilitary forces.
• CENTCOM: United States Central Command.

---

I. The Situation in Iran: Protests and Potential for Change

The discussion began with President Trump’s social media posts expressing support for Iranian protestors and warning of potential US intervention. Former Biden Senior Advisor Amos Hochstein characterized the current protests in Iran as “extraordinary,” noting their scale and duration are significant. He differentiated these protests from previous unrest (Green Revolution, Women, Life, Freedom movement) by highlighting that the current issues stem from economic hardship – specifically, the devaluation of the currency and widespread hunger – rather than ideological disputes that the regime could address with concessions (like relaxing religious police presence).

Hochstein argued that the US is observing elements of potential regime collapse, but crucially, there is no unified opposition or visible cracks within the regime itself. He drew a parallel to the protests in Tahrir Square during the Egyptian revolution, where security forces ultimately refused to fire on protestors, a scenario not yet observed in Iran. He emphasized that it is “too early” to assess the potential for regime change, noting that the protests are only in their second week and no faction within the regime has shown signs of defection.

He cautioned against military intervention, stating that even airstrikes would be ineffective without “boots on the ground” and that removing the Supreme Leader wouldn’t guarantee a stable outcome, as the successor is unknown. He stressed the need for a “carefully articulated day after plan.”

II. Iran vs. Venezuela: Lessons Learned

Hochstein contrasted the Iranian situation with the attempted regime change in Venezuela, where the goal was to remove a single individual, but the regime remained intact. He stated that while Venezuela resulted in a “puppet regime” largely influenced by the US, replicating this outcome in Iran would be far more difficult due to the strength and complexity of the Iranian regime. He argued that simply removing the Supreme Leader wouldn’t be sufficient, as the regime is not monolithic and demonstrates significant resolve.

He advocated for continued US support for the protestors, including restoring internet connectivity, and suggested that if the US offers “help,” it must be tangible. He acknowledged the difficulty in determining what form that help should take, given the risks associated with military intervention and the lack of clear targets.

III. Geopolitical Concerns: Greenland, Russia, and China

The conversation shifted to President Trump’s statements regarding Greenland, Russia, and China, specifically his suggestion of an “iron dome” to protect Greenland from potential takeover. Hochstein dismissed the notion of an imminent Russian or Chinese operation to seize Greenland, stating there has been no intelligence to support such a claim. He emphasized that Greenland is part of Denmark and has an independence movement, and that any decisions regarding its future should be made by the Greenlandic people.

He argued against the US attempting to “own” Greenland, pointing out that Denmark, as a NATO ally, would likely grant the US access to resources and bases if requested, including mining rights and intelligence facilities. He characterized the current debate as a “friction point that is completely unnecessary.”

IV. Oil Price Dynamics and Political Considerations

The discussion then turned to oil prices. Hochstein explained that oil prices are currently rising despite Venezuelan instability because the market anticipates that Venezuela won’t significantly increase oil production anytime soon. He also noted that the Iranian protests are contributing to price pressure. He cautioned that a price of $50 or $60 per barrel is insufficient to incentivize investment in Venezuela, and that dealing with the Venezuelan government carries significant risk due to potential contract invalidation.

Hochstein suggested that President Trump’s desire for lower gas prices may be driving his focus on $50 oil, but questioned whether he fully understands the consequences. He warned that artificially lowering prices below $50 could lead to production cuts in the US shale patch, impacting both oil and natural gas supplies, and potentially disrupting the energy needs of data centers and AI infrastructure.

V. Key Arguments and Perspectives

Hochstein presented a cautious and pragmatic perspective on both the Iranian protests and the broader geopolitical landscape. He emphasized the complexities of regime change, the limitations of US intervention, and the importance of careful planning. He argued against impulsive actions and advocated for a nuanced approach based on realistic assessments of the situation on the ground. He also highlighted the interconnectedness of global events, demonstrating how political instability in Iran and Venezuela can impact oil prices and energy security.

Notable Quotes:

• “We’re observing elements of regime collapse here, but there’s no actual opposition, and there is no signs yet that any parts of the regime are collapsing.” – Amos Hochstein
• “Just taking one person out is not going to give you the answer. It’s a much more complicated and strong regime.” – Amos Hochstein
• “I don’t understand. I think it’s a friction point that is completely unnecessary.” – Amos Hochstein (regarding the Greenland debate)

---

Conclusion:

The discussion provided a detailed analysis of the volatile situation in Iran, the challenges of potential intervention, and the broader geopolitical implications of these events. Hochstein’s insights underscored the need for a cautious, strategic, and well-informed approach to navigating these complex issues, emphasizing the importance of understanding the specific dynamics at play in each region and avoiding simplistic solutions. The conversation also highlighted the interconnectedness of energy markets, political stability, and geopolitical strategy.