A swift resolution to the ongoing conflict involving Iran is reportedly being considered, a development that critics argue would significantly benefit the global coalition described as the "green-red alliance" of imperial Islam and Marxism.

Economic Fallout and Energy Security Concerns

Impact of Strait of Hormuz Closure

The current instability has already driven oil prices above $100 per barrel, signaling serious potential disruptions to the global economy. Even though the United States is a net energy exporter, it remains vulnerable to these international price surges.

A substantial portion of the world's oil supply, estimated at a quarter, transits daily through the Strait of Hormuz. While past prices, like those during the Obama presidency, reached higher inflation-adjusted levels (over $170), current consumer anger over rising gasoline costs remains a significant factor.

Civilizational Conflict and Strategic Missteps

Dangers of Premature Withdrawal

The core issue surrounding any early cessation of hostilities transcends mere economic health or electoral strategy. It is fundamentally tied to the broader tide of the West's ongoing civilizational conflict, of which the confrontation with Iran is a key component.

There is speculation that the President might be intentionally misleading adversaries by suggesting weakness, potentially planning a surprise, massive strike after enemies become complacent. Hope remains that this is the case, as ending the war in its current state would be widely viewed as a failure.

Questionable Post-Conflict Strategy

Discouraging signals suggest a strategy where the President might temporarily neutralize Iran’s missile stocks and military capacity, declare victory, and then rely heavily on diplomacy to reopen the critical waterway.

If diplomacy fails, the suggested recourse is for Tehran to “build up some delayed courage” and secure its own oil supplies. The author questions this logic, asking why, if opening the Strait of Hormuz is the "easy part," the U.S. has not already achieved it.

European Inaction and Domestic Opposition

European Leaders' Stance

European nations have largely distanced themselves from the conflict, labeling it "not their battle," despite their urgent need for new energy sources. This stance is particularly concerning given Tehran's proven capability to strike much of Europe with ballistic missiles.

Given this perceived European fecklessness, any move by the U.S. President to appear as the responsible adult would be remarkable.

Encouragement for Islamist Forces

Even as kinetic battlefield situations remain challenging, Islamist forces have received encouragement from the American Left. Large weekend demonstrations, described as "No Kings" rallies, functioned substantially as anti-war protests.

Signs at these rallies, such as one crudely reading “No Turd World War,” are cited as reflecting the rhetoric of those supportive of Iran in the West. Protesters depicted the democratically elected President as a tyrant while ignoring the murderous denial of will imposed by Iran's actual rulers.

The Marxist-Jihadist Nexus

In New York City, demonstrators were observed waving hammer and sickle flags while chanting, “There is only one solution, communist revolution!” This chant is noted for mirroring the rhythm of the jihadist slogan, “There is only one solution, intifada revolution,” substituting Marxist terminology.

This substitution is presented as perfectly encapsulating the opportunistic bond between modern Marxists and Islamists. Both groups, despite differing ideals, share a mutual, destructive determination to undermine and ultimately destroy Western civilization.

Unless the President is executing a strategic feint leading to renewed intensity against the Islamic Republic, the recent events suggest a loss of conviction, with a rampant Left actively working to undermine American confidence and purpose.