Chuck Holton
Politics • Culture • News
What a US-Iran War Could Look Like:
March 17, 2025
post photo preview
 
Let’s dive into what a war between the US and Iran might mean—no fluff, just the basics. The US wouldn’t send ground troops storming in; instead, it’d lean on air and naval power. Here’s how it could play out, how Iran might respond, and what it’d mean for the region and beyond.
The Conflict: Air Strikes, Not Ground Fights
Imagine the US launching a barrage of missiles and airstrikes from jets, ships, and drones based in the Persian Gulf or nearby countries like Qatar. The targets? Iran’s missile launchers, air defenses, and oil facilities. Navy ships would block Iran’s ports, cutting off trade, while cyberattacks could disrupt their power grid or military communications. The aim would be to weaken Iran’s forces and economy without a full-scale invasion.
Iran’s army is sizable—over 500,000 troops—but it’s built for defense, not matching US technology. Their bases and equipment would take heavy damage, though their mountainous terrain could shield some units.
Iran’s Response: Disruption Over Direct Wins
Iran wouldn’t back down quietly. They’ve got ballistic missiles capable of hitting US bases in Iraq or Bahrain, and they’ve used them before. They’d also activate their regional allies—Hezbollah in Lebanon, militias in Iraq, and Yemen’s Houthis—to target US interests or allies like Israel and Saudi Arabia, potentially with rocket attacks or strikes on oil infrastructure.
In the Gulf, Iran could deploy small boats and mines to harass shipping, possibly disrupting the Strait of Hormuz, a key oil chokepoint. That could push oil prices to $150 a barrel or higher. Cyberattacks on US systems or proxy-led terror strikes abroad are also in their toolkit. Their strategy would focus on creating widespread problems rather than winning a head-on fight.
Regional and Global Fallout
The effects would spread fast. Oil markets would jolt, driving up fuel and food costs worldwide. In the Middle East, conflict zones like Iraq and Syria could see intensified fighting, while refugees might pour into neighboring countries. Saudi Arabia and Israel could face direct attacks despite welcoming a weaker Iran.
China and Russia, both tied to Iran, would likely stay out of the fray militarily. China would criticize the US, secure alternative oil supplies, and look to strengthen ties with Gulf states. Russia might quietly send Iran weapons—missiles or drones—and use the situation to distract the US from other fronts, like Ukraine. Both would frame it as a chance to challenge American influence.
The Wider Impact
The US could severely damage Iran’s military, but a total knockout without ground forces is unlikely. Iran’s ability to stir trouble would keep the conflict grinding on. Rising energy costs and regional instability could strain US alliances, while giving China and Russia openings to expand their reach. If Iran feels desperate, a push toward nuclear weapons could escalate things further.
In short, a US-Iran war would hit hard, cost a lot, and leave everyone dealing with the aftermath. Thoughts? Let me know what you think below!
community logo
Join the Chuck Holton Community
To read more articles like this, sign up and join my community today
9
What else you may like…
Videos
Podcasts
Posts
Articles
Powerful

No one in Ukraine asked for this.

00:02:32
Merry Christmas Friends

On this holy in special day, please don’t forget about people in Warzone around the world. We are unable to celebrate as they would like.

00:00:29
Bondi Beach Massacre

Here's a longer version of the videio I showed on today's live:

00:10:42
Episode 622 - Field Producer Dennis Azato and Chuck Reminisce

My erstwhile field producer and cameraman Dennis Azato has accompanied me on ten years of adventures across the globe. Today he joins me in Ukraine and we spend some time remembering our many trips together.

Episode 622 - Field Producer Dennis Azato and Chuck Reminisce

Thank you to everyone who opened their hearts and homes to these puppies. We’re so grateful they’ve gone to such wonderful families. This community truly shows up in times of need, and we are incredibly thankful for every message, share, and offer of help. Merry Christmas!

post photo preview

Merry Christmas Zonians!

Merry Christmas, Chuck and family! May you have a blessed time with family and the "grand babies."

I have fond memories of visiting Beckley back in '93 to visit Appalachian Bible College and spend some time with my uncle, who was the pastor at Mt. Tabor Baptist, aunt and cousin. I left Beckley only to return home to a flood.

One other thing I remember: It seemed like everything bore former Senator Robert Byrd's name.

Thank you for everything you do. May God richly bless all of you!

Christmas Special Live Call Link

Reminder: Live Call with Chuck Tomorrow at 12PM

Join Chuck Holton and the Hot Zone crew tomorrow, December 20th at 12PM for a special live call!

We’ll be announcing the winners of the Christmas giveaway and giving you an inside look at what’s coming next for The Hot Zone.

 

Only for Supporters
To read the rest of this article and access other paid content, you must be a supporter
Read full Article
post photo preview
Three Americans Killed in Syria — and the Question Washington Doesn’t Want to Answer

Breaking news this Saturday: three Americans are dead in Syria tonight, three more are wounded, and the attack—described by U.S. Central Command as an ambush carried out by a lone ISIS gunman—has once again dragged the Syrian war back into the American consciousness for a few brief hours, which is usually all the time the public gives it before the news cycle moves on and the families are left to carry the weight alone.

 

CENTCOM says two of the dead were U.S. service members and one was an American civilian contractor, and that the attacker was engaged and killed as well, with names being withheld until next of kin are notified, which is the right thing to do; but even with those official facts in hand, I want to slow the pace down a little bit and do what I always try to do here—put this in context—because in a place like Syria, the story you get in the headline is almost never the story that explains why this happened.

I’m not interested in reporting tragedy like it’s a scoreboard, and I’m not interested in repeating a paragraph of breaking news without the background that makes it intelligible; I spent eight years in the military, and I’ve spent more than twenty years following the U.S. military across the globe—Afghanistan, Iraq, and Syria included, with more than a dozen trips into Afghanistan, roughly fifteen into Iraq, and seven or so into Syria—so when Americans die in a place most people couldn’t find on a map, I feel a responsibility to show you what the map actually means.

The desert isn’t empty—ISIS hides in the “nothing”

The reported location of the attack is Palmyra—Palmira on some maps—an ancient city in central Syria that sits on the edge of a brutal expanse of desert, the kind of wide open, sun-blasted country where outsiders assume nothing lives and nothing happens, when in reality it’s exactly the kind of terrain insurgents love because “nothing” is a perfect disguise, a perfect place to move, cache weapons, blend into small villages, disappear into wadis, and wait for opportunities.

Palmyra also sits inside territory controlled by Syria’s new administration under Ahmed al-Sharaa, and if that name makes you pause, it should, because this is where Syrian politics gets complicated in the way only Syria can do: al-Sharaa rose through jihadist ranks, he has a history tied to insurgent warfare against Americans in Iraq, he was captured and held for years, and he later returned to Syria and consolidated power with strong Turkish backing—so when you hear phrases like “new Syrian administration” or “transitional government,” don’t imagine a Western-style democracy that suddenly appeared out of the sand; imagine a patchwork of militias, alliances of convenience, old enemies wearing new uniforms, and a leadership class that wants international legitimacy while carrying a past that cannot be scrubbed clean with a new suit and a new flag.

Now layer on top of that the reality that ISIS is not gone from Syria, not even close.

U.S. estimates have long suggested there are still roughly 2,000 to 3,000 ISIS fighters operating in and around the central Syrian desert, and there are far more than that if you include facilitators, family networks, financiers, and the enormous number of ISIS-linked detainees and relatives held in camps and makeshift prisons; and while that fight has mostly slipped out of the American public’s view, it continues quietly, relentlessly, week after week, because the moment pressure is relieved in a place like this, the violence doesn’t fade—it regroups.

Why American troops are still there—despite everything

The United States currently has about 900 troops in Syria, a number that matters because it tells you how thin the margin is between “containment” and “collapse,” especially when the enemy has deep local roots and decades of practice living off the land and off the grievances of the people around them; and those American troops are there for one primary purpose: to keep a lid on ISIS so we don’t wake up one day to another wave of mass executions, terror-state governance, and regional destabilization that forces the world back into a far more expensive war.

That’s the mission, and it’s not abstract; when ISIS surged the last time, the human cost was staggering, and it wasn’t paid by politicians or pundits—it was paid by Iraqi soldiers, Kurdish fighters, civilians, and yes, Americans too—and the reason our presence in Syria still functions as a deterrent is that in a powder keg region, a small, capable American footprint has a way of discouraging ambitious actors from taking the final step that turns instability into open war.

But here is the part that doesn’t get said out loud very often: the mission in Syria is increasingly tangled up in partnerships that are, at best, uneasy and, at worst, morally and strategically risky.

Only for Supporters
To read the rest of this article and access other paid content, you must be a supporter
Read full Article
post photo preview
The Dark Fleet Is Fueling the World’s Dictators — And the U.S. Might Finally Be Ready to Do Something About It

I’m coming to you today from Panama, where I’ve been digging into a story that’s far bigger than most people realize. It involves a shadowy network of ships—1,423 of them at last count—that roam the world’s oceans moving sanctioned oil for regimes like Russia, Iran, and Venezuela. Some call it the dark fleet, others the ghost fleet, but whatever the name, it’s become a lifeline for the world’s worst dictators.

Out of those 1,423 vessels, roughly 920 are sanctioned themselves. These aren’t just ships doing business in a gray area—they are part of a global ecosystem of deception, fraud, and corruption that props up authoritarian governments and undermines the international rules that keep maritime trade safe. They spoof GPS signals, turn off their transponders, swap oil with “cleaner” tankers in the dead of night, operate under shell-company ownership, and sail uninsured—floating environmental disasters just waiting to happen.

And for years, not much was done about it. But that may be changing.

Just days ago, the United States seized a massive VLCC tanker—the Skipper—carrying 1.8 million barrels of Venezuelan crude bound for Cuba. It’s a move that seems small on its own, but it hints at something larger: Washington may finally be realizing that targeting the dark fleet isn’t just desirable—it’s strategically powerful.

That raises a fascinating question: What would happen if the U.S. and its allies cracked down hard on these ghost ships—everywhere, all at once? Could it reshape global power? Could it even topple Maduro?

Let’s dig into that.

 

A Sanctions Loophole Big Enough to Sail a Tanker Through

These ghost ships function by exploiting cracks in the global maritime system. They manipulate AIS beacons, swap oil mid-ocean, hide ownership behind layers of shell companies, fly false flags, and operate without legitimate insurance. The UN’s maritime regulator has warned that these rusted, poorly maintained hulks are ticking time bombs—and we’ve already seen “Ukrainian sanctions” in action when Ukrainian sea drones blew up several shadow-fleet tankers in the Black Sea.

Imagine what happens if one of these decrepit tankers explodes in a global choke point like the Strait of Hormuz. You’d see a shock to oil markets overnight.

And yet, that’s the system that keeps Venezuela, Iran, and Russia afloat.

 

The U.S. Begins to Apply Pressure

The seizure of the Skipper wasn’t random. It’s part of a broader pressure campaign—one that former Secretary of State Mike Pompeo has openly supported. He said plainly that going after these vessels is a direct way to choke off the revenue Maduro depends on to stay in power.

Pompeo also noted something key: Maduro’s regime probably has “weeks, not months” of financial runway without this illicit revenue stream. And Cuba—already experiencing rolling blackouts—relies on Venezuela for about a quarter of its total energy supply. This single tanker seizure hurts Havana even more than Caracas.

But perhaps the most important variable is geography. Satellite data reveals dozens of sanctioned tankers parked just off Venezuela’s northern coast. In theory, if the U.S. waits for them to exit Venezuela’s 200-mile EEZ, it could legally seize many of them—especially the stateless ones.

Imagine the U.S. grabbing one tanker per day.

The ripple effects would be enormous.

Only for Supporters
To read the rest of this article and access other paid content, you must be a supporter
Read full Article
See More
Available on mobile and TV devices
google store google store app store app store
google store google store app tv store app tv store amazon store amazon store roku store roku store
Powered by Locals