Trump Issues Official Response to Rising Gas Prices – Most Insightful Take in All of Media – Tags Out With ‘Only Fools Would Think Differently’
Deprecated: str_getcsv(): the $escape parameter must be provided as its default value will change in /var/www/html/breaking-news/wp-content/plugins/wp-auto-affiliate-links/aal_engine.php on line 361
Rising gas prices and the Iran crisis are explored in this article,which blends market data,geopolitical commentary,and political opinion.
– Market context: U.S. gasoline prices have climbed, with AAA reporting an average around $3.54 per gallon, up about $0.62 from a month earlier. Oil briefly topped $100 per barrel due to tensions after attacks linked to the Strait of Hormuz,but later settled around $84.27, higher than pre-conflict levels.
– Geopolitical lens: The piece ties tighter oil-market risks to the Strait of Hormuz and broader Middle East tensions, arguing that shipping crude from major producers has become riskier as a result.
– Political analysis: It frames the tension as a test of U.S. leadership and foreign policy, citing President Donald Trump’s statements that short-term oil price spikes are a small price for safety and global security. The article also discusses energy policy moves, including a claim that America is pursuing “REAL ENERGY DOMINANCE” and highlighting a large refinery project in Brownsville, Texas.
– Iran policy debate: The author advocates decisive action against Iran’s nuclear and missile programs, suggesting that decapitating leadership could reduce threats and possibly produce a temporary rise in energy prices that is manageable if the management’s timeline holds. It contrasts this with criticisms of the Obama-era nuclear deal and speculates on how Iran might act if it acquires more weapons.
– Conditional reasoning: While acknowledging a possible price blip, the piece argues that a controlled, strategic approach could minimize protracted conflict and prevent long-term price volatility, emphasizing deterrence and avoiding broader entanglements.
– Additional content notes: The article includes social media embeds (tweets), promotional material, and ad/script blocks typical of online news sites, as well as placeholders for additional links and interactive features.
the piece argues that current gas-price fluctuations are tied to geopolitical risk, especially Iran, and frames a strong, interventionist U.S. energy and foreign-policy stance as the path to both security and a temporary, manageable price impact.
It’s hardly surprising that gas prices are up in the United States. After a showdown with Iran ended in attacks that spread to other Gulf states, the Strait of Hormuz is a dangerous place to be, and shipping crude from the world’s biggest producers of energy is going to be a perilous business for a while.
As of Monday, the national average for a gallon of gas was $3.54, according to the AAA’s national average, up $0.62 from a month ago.
A barrel of oil briefly surpassed $100 for the first time since the Russian invasion of Ukraine, as CNBC noted, before falling once it looked as if the conflict wouldn’t be prolonged. It’s currently at $84.27, still up from pre-hostility levels of between $60 and $70 for most of the prior months.
It’s perfectly natural for Americans to be worried about oil prices at the moment while realizing what the endgame is — as President Donald Trump pointed out in a message on earlier this week.
“Short term oil prices, which will drop rapidly when the destruction of the Iran nuclear threat is over, is a very small price to pay for U.S.A., and World, Safety and Peace,” he wrote on Sunday.
“ONLY FOOLS WOULD THINK DIFFERENTLY!” he added.
“ONLY FOOLS WOULD THINK DIFFERENTLY!” – President Trump pic.twitter.com/HjldnKcVoY
— An0maly (@LegendaryEnergy) March 8, 2026
Agreed. And unlike the war in Ukraine — a completely avoidable conflict via deterrence, if the Biden administration had projected any kind of strength in terms of foreign policy — there was eventually going to be conflict with Iran, at least with the mullahs in Tehran on the trajectory they’re on now.
The question, therefore, isn’t whether you want a blip in gas prices. It’s more a matter of whether you want that blip now or later.
At this point, Iran’s nuclear and ballistic missile programs haven’t just been obliterated. The people who ran them have been as well — all this through a decapitation strike and limited warfare from Tehran in return.
What would happen if this occurred down the road, under a different administration far more reticent in regard to making sure Iran didn’t get nukes or increase its ballistic missile stocks? Would this spike gas prices even more? Likely so, particularly if you look at the fallout from Ukraine.
Furthermore, assume that no attack was undertaken: Iran would likely get nukes and increase its conventional weaponry, something that was effectively ensured by Barack Obama’s flawed nuclear deal.
How would Iran use these weapons? We’ve had some preview of that counterfactual for the past few weeks. It would be bad for the world and worst for the U.S. and the Middle East. If they didn’t, they’d make the missile and drone strikes against the United Arab Emirates and Qatar look like child’s play — a bigger shock to gas prices, one would think.
And then you have building up for that eventuality. How have successive administrations dealt with American refining capacity? We’ve seen how Obama and Biden fared. Meanwhile, Trump is charting a different course:
Donald J. Trump 03.10.26 04:17 PM EST
America is returning to REAL ENERGY DOMINANCE! Today I am proud to announce that America First Refining is opening the FIRST new U.S. Oil Refinery in 50 YEARS in Brownsville, Texas. THIS IS A HISTORIC $300 BILLION DOLLAR DEAL —…
— Commentary Donald J. Trump Posts From (@TrumpDailyPosts) March 10, 2026
Yes, regime change would be nice. It’s also highly dependent on the Iranian people being capable of effecting it, as President Trump has said. The important part is that Iran stops pursuing both nuclear and conventional weapons programs designed to assert dominance over the Middle East.
There might be a temporary blip in gas prices, sure. The key word is “temporary” if the strikes are controlled and the administration’s timeline is more or less accurate. While these statements are conditional, the administration has made a point of averting protracted foreign engagements.
It’s a solid investment to decapitate the leadership and military capacity of one of America’s biggest adversaries when they’re at their most vulnerable — and, yes, only fools (and Democrats, but I repeat myself) would think differently.
Advertise with The Western Journal and reach millions of highly engaged readers, while supporting our work. Advertise Today.
" Conservative News Daily does not always share or support the views and opinions expressed here; they are just those of the writer."
*As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases
