Trump has once again proven that initiating a short-term war often leads to a long-term conflict.

Those media outlets and institutions that believed the conflict would end in April have undoubtedly been severely proven wrong.
In military confrontations, if the stronger side (the United States) rushes to fight a quick and decisive war,
it may actually give the weaker side (Iran) the greatest incentive to delay.
Iran is well aware that directly confronting on the battlefield, head-to-head, would be a losing proposition, so Iran understands that the best strategy for the weaker side is to infinitely increase the opponent’s war costs.
Using extremely cheap drones to harass or even paralyze the Strait of Hormuz, a vital global energy artery, or directly attack oil fields owned by Middle Eastern oil tycoons.
By cutting off energy supply lines, they aim to drag the U.S. and its allies into a quagmire of high inflation, forcing the other side to make concessions because their economy cannot withstand the pressure.
Currently, the mainstream market view remains relatively optimistic, believing that a ceasefire could be achieved by the end of April, which in turn significantly underestimates the risk of the war being prolonged.
Such scenarios are not unheard of; a replay of the 1979 oil crisis is also possible.
Iran’s drone stockpile is sufficient to sustain over half a year, as long as they withstand systemic U.S. strikes and continue to sabotage energy infrastructure.
Global oil supply could sharply deteriorate within two to three months, and this is the real global black swan.
$NMR ‌#Gate广场四月发帖挑战