Oil prices have dropped for two straight days following previous surges, having hit four-year highs on Monday before logging the biggest single-day percentage drop since 2022. Oil prices plunged on Tuesday when Secretary of Energy Chris Wright claimed in an X post that the U.S. Navy successfully escorted an oil tanker through the Strait of Hormuz. Brent Crude dropped to around $81 per barrel, according to MarketWatch. However, White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt corrected that claim in her Tuesday afternoon press briefing, which sent oil prices back up, with Brent Crude closing around $91 per barrel. “I can confirm that the U.S. Navy has not escorted a tanker or a vessel at this time, though, of course, that’s an option that the president has said he will absolutely utilize if and when necessary at the appropriate time,” Leavitt said. Using the U.S. Navy to escort vessels through the Strait of Hormuz, through which about 20% of the world’s oil travels, is just one of the options the Trump administration has announced that would bring down prices. The administration ordered the U.S. International Development Finance Corporation to offer political risk insurance to tankers operating in the Gulf. Insurance policies covering a vessel traveling through the strait have reportedly jumped by as much as 37.5%, while others were canceled altogether. In addition, the Treasury Department lifted oil sanctions — most notably on Friday, when Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent issued a temporary 30-day lift allowing India to buy Russian oil. Senate Democrats criticized the decision to lift oil sanctions, writing in a statement, “Now is not the time to clear the way for sales for Russian oil majors and Russian-owned and shadow fleet vessels.” Bessent argued that the lifted sanctions were narrow in scope and would not provide a substantial financial benefit to the Russian government. Russia, the United States, and Saudi Arabia lead the world in oil production.

If you asked someone to name a famous dystopian novel, they’d probably come up with something like George Orwell’s “1984” or “Animal Farm.” Or maybe they’d mention “Fahrenheit 451” by Ray Bradbury. Or if they’re younger, something like “The Hunger Games.” These are all very well-known works of dystopian fiction, and pretty much every school forces students to read at least one of them. What’s interesting about all of these novels is that, in every case, the threat comes from within. You have the dictatorship “The Capitol” in “The Hunger Games,” Big Brother and “The Party” in 1984, the tyrannical pigs in “Animal Farm,” and the fire captain in “Fahrenheit 451.” That’s not a knock against the novels, but it’s worth pointing out. This is the “safe” message that’s approved to teach, in every school in the country. Students are bombarded with the message that domestic authoritarianism is the greatest threat. And then when these students grow up, unsurprisingly enough, many of them are sympathetic to Left-wing messaging about the alleged rise of “fascism” in the United States. But there is one dystopian novel that focuses on an external threat to a sovereign nation. And appropriately enough, this dystopian novel — unlike all the other ones I mentioned — has been censored relentlessly. No school in the United States will assign it. If you mention that you’ve even read this novel, you’ll instantly be labeled a white supremacist by the editors of The Atlantic. Reading this novel amounts to “wrongthink.” It was first published in the 1970s, but it was quickly dropped by major publishers because it was seen as racist and offensive. Currently, it’s only in print because of a small independent publishing house called “Vauban Books.” I’m talking about the book called “The Camp of the Saints,” by the French author Jean Raspail. Contrary to what you’re told, this book is not a “white supremacist” screed. Nor is it concerned solely with the rise of domestic “fascism.” Instead, “The Camp of the Saints” is about a threat that’s external to a sovereign nation — specifically, the threat of unchecked mass migration. As the author puts it, the book is not about “Big Brother.” It’s about “Big Other.” This is one dystopian plotline that you really aren’t supposed to read. But if you do read the book, you’ll quickly come across dialogue that doesn’t exactly mince words, and characters that aren’t exactly subtle. Certainly, back in the 1970s, the novel might have seemed a little over-the-top and hard to believe. For instance, in the very first chapter, a million foreigners from India are on boats, rapidly heading towards the coast of southern France. And as the foreign armada approaches, a white French hippie barges into the home of an old professor. And the hippie can’t contain his excitement about the foreign flood that’s descending on France, his home country. He states, Tomorrow, we won’t recognize this country anymore. It’s going to be reborn. … My real family is all the people coming off those boats. Now I have a million brothers, sisters, fathers and mothers. A million wives. And then he talks about how he’s going to marry one of the foreigners, and all of his friends are going to do the same thing. And eventually, there won’t be any white people left in France. I won’t spoil the surprise of what the professor does to this hippie — it’s a book that’s worth reading, is all I’m going to say — but you get the idea. The book is full of quotes like this. And honestly, if you were a reader in France in the 1970s, the dialogue may have seemed fairly unconvincing. After all, who would actually welcome a horde of impoverished foreigners who were in the process of invading their home country? In real life, how many people would have so little respect for their own country, and harbor such obsessive disdain for their own skin color, that they would welcome the invasion of a million hostile migrants from a distant land? It’s been half a century since “The Camp of the Saints” was published. It’s still one of the only dystopian novels that you’re not allowed to talk about in polite company. But if there was ever any question of whether the characters in the novel were a little over-the-top and unbelievable, that conversation has now ended, as of today. After what just happened in New York City, we can definitively state that, if anything, “The Camp of the Saints” dramatically undersold the extent of the anti-white and anti-civilizational depravity that would take hold in the West. The book was ahead of its time, in other words. As of 2026, everyday Leftists walking around the streets of New York have far more suicidal empathy — and harbor far more anti-white hatred — than any character depicted in “The Camp of the Saints.” We briefly discussed the terrorist attack in New York yesterday. But in particular, we need to focus on how a man named “Walter Masterson” — who was present during the attack — responded to what he experienced. Masterson was in front of the Mayor’s residence demonstrating in favor of more migration to the United States. He was chanting, through a megaphone, that New York welcomes everyone. And then, as he was saying this, one of the Muslim terrorists jumps up behind him, yells “Allah Akbar” and throws a bomb at the conservative activist Jake Lang. This is some of the most extraordinary footage you’ll ever see. There are two angles: Watch: I was in the middle of saying “as a born and raised New Yorker, we welcome everyone into this city” when he threw that over my head. pic.twitter.com/i5iD3MVf7h — Walter Masterson (@waltermasterson) March 8, 2026 Source: @waltermasterson/X.com

Trump-backed Republican Clay Fuller and Democrat Shawn Harris will presumably face off in an April 7 runoff special election in former Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene’s Georgia district, based on the results available as of Tuesday evening. Greene resigned from her position representing the 14th Congressional District on Jan. 5 after a public falling out with President Donald Trump over the Epstein files, despite once being close allies. The special election comes as Speaker Mike Johnson’s (R-LA) Republican majority remains extremely slim, as Rep. Kevin Kiley (I-CA) announced that he would still caucus with Republicans, but would leave the party. This leaves only 217 registered Republicans in the House. There are two other vacancies in the House, one in a Republican-leaning seat and another in a Democratic-leaning seat, with those special elections in the coming months. Harris, a farmer and retired brigadier general, wrote in an X post on Tuesday night that “Marjorie Taylor Greene isn’t on the ballot, but the fallout from her feud still is.” “This race isn’t about loyalty to Trump. It’s about loyalty to the voters of Northwest Georgia,” he wrote. “I’m running to serve the people here at home — not chase anyone in Washington.” Former State Sen. Colton Moore and Brian Stover were other key Republicans in the special election, but Fuller ultimately earned the Trump nod in February, with the president writing on Truth Social that Fuller is “strongly supported by the most Highly Respected MAGA Warriors in Georgia, and many Republicans in the U.S. House of Representatives.” In November, Greene shared a video explaining her decision, saying that “loyalty should be a two-way street.” “I’ve been blessed to represent the 14th District of Georgia for five years. That district is filled with some of the most wonderful, kind-hearted, God fearing, patriotic, hardworking people you will ever meet. Good, regular, common Americans,” the congresswoman said. “Because my self worth is not defined by a man, but instead by God, who created everything in existence,” Greene added at the time. The district is deeply Republican, with Greene winning re-election in 2024 with over 64% of the vote compared with Kamala Harris’ roughly 36%. Trump won the district with 68% of the vote, and he won the battleground state of Georgia with just under 51%. All eyes will remain on the Peach State through November, as the United States Senate race is considered a “toss-up,” according to the Cook Political Report. Sen. Jon Ossoff (D-GA) will face off against either Reps. Mike Collins, Buddy Carter, or former football coach Derek Dooley, depending on who wins the Republican primary on May 19. Trump has yet to endorse a candidate in the race.

BY THE OPTIMIST DAILY EDITORIAL TEAM The beauty of the cherry blooms doesn’t last long, but that’s what makes it a spectacular phenomenon to catch each year. Once the trees are fully open, you typically have one to two weeks before wind, rain, or a temperature swing brings them down. Knowing when to show up matters. How cherry trees know when to bloom Peak bloom is defined as the point when about 70 percent of the Yoshino cherry blossoms on a given tree are open. Getting there requires something called “chill hours,” the amount of time a tree needs to spend in cold temperatures during winter to trigger blooming. A prolonged deep freeze can push the timing back; mild weather accelerates it. After the cold and snowy winter most of the country just experienced, trees in most regions have had more than enough chill hours. How the next few weeks unfold will determine the exact window. Washington, D.C. The National Park Service, the National Cherry Blossom Festival, and the Trust for the National Mall have announced that D.C.’s peak bloom is expected between March 29 and April 1. The best viewing is along the Tidal Basin and the National Mall, where thousands of Yoshino cherry trees line the water. In recent years, peak bloom has been trending earlier, so it’s worth checking for updates as the date approaches. The South Southern states get cherry blossoms first. In Georgia, Tennessee, and Texas, peak bloom typically arrives about a week and a half to two weeks before D.C. Macon, Georgia, is worth a trip if you can manage it. Macon-Bibb County has the largest concentration of cherry trees of any county in the country, with nearly 100 times more trees than the entire National Mall in Washington. The city’s International Cherry Blossom Festival runs from March 20 to 29 this year. At the Dallas Arboretum in Texas, the Yoshino cherry blossoms are expected to open within the next few weeks. The Midwest Cherry blossoms across the Midwest bloom anywhere from late March to early May, depending on how far north you are. Missouri and Ohio typically peak in late March to mid-April. In Chicago, Jackson Park’s Columbia Basin, near the Garden of the Phoenix, is the spot to visit. Door County, Wisconsin, sits on the later end, with peak bloom usually arriving in mid-May. New York and New England New York City has cherry blossoms scattered across several parks: Central Park, the Brooklyn Botanic Garden, Flushing Meadows-Corona Park in Queens, and Roosevelt Island. The Central Park Conservancy notes that blooms generally begin in late March and peak in mid- to late April, though changing climate patterns have made exact timing harder to predict in recent years. In New England, cherry trees typically bloom about 20 days after D.C., landing in the second to third week of April. In New Haven, Connecticut, the annual Wooster Square Cherry Blossom Festival is scheduled for April 19. The West At the University of Washington in Seattle, buds have already appeared on the Yoshino cherry trees, which typically reach peak bloom from late March to early April. Portland, Oregon, has 100 cherry trees along Tom McCall Waterfront Park, plus a curated collection at the Portland Japanese Garden. The garden reports the Yoshino cherries are starting to wake up, with peak bloom expected sometime between late March and the first week of April. Wherever you are, it’s worth making time for this one. Cherry blossom season has a short window, and it reliably pulls people out of their routines and into parks, waterfronts, and public spaces. Get out there and enjoy the blooms!     Did this solution stand out? Share it with a friend or support our mission by becoming an Emissary.The post Where and when to catch peak cherry blossom bloom across the US this spring first appeared on The Optimist Daily: Making Solutions the News.

BY THE OPTIMIST DAILY EDITORIAL TEAM For decades, the Taklamakan Desert was described in stark terms: a “biological void,” a vast expanse of shifting sand where little could survive. Slightly larger than the state of Montana and ringed by mountains that block most incoming moisture, it remains one of the largest and driest deserts on Earth. Now, new research suggests that the story at its edges is changing. After decades of large-scale tree planting, scientists report that vegetation surrounding the Taklamakan is absorbing more carbon dioxide than the desert emits, effectively turning parts of this once-expanding landscape into a carbon sink. From desert expansion to ecological engineering More than 95 percent of the Taklamakan is covered in moving sand. Since the 1950s, rapid urbanization and farmland expansion in China have contributed to land degradation and desertification, creating conditions that intensified sandstorms and allowed the desert to expand. In 1978, China launched the Three-North Shelterbelt Program, widely known as the Great Green Wall. The ambitious initiative aims to plant billions of trees along the margins of the Taklamakan and Gobi deserts by 2050, creating a vast belt of vegetation designed to stabilize soil and slow desert spread. To date, more than 66 billion trees have been planted across northern China. In 2024, officials completed the encirclement of the Taklamakan with vegetation. Forest cover across China has increased from about 10 percent of the country’s land area in 1949 to more than 25 percent today. The project’s effectiveness in reducing sandstorms remains debated. But its impact on carbon dynamics is now coming into sharper focus. A measurable shift in carbon balance In a study published January 19 in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, researchers analyzed 25 years of ground observations and satellite data tracking precipitation, vegetation cover, photosynthesis, and carbon dioxide fluxes around the Taklamakan. They also incorporated modeling data from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s Carbon Tracker, which maps global carbon sources and sinks. Their findings reveal a consistent expansion of vegetation and increasing carbon uptake along the desert’s perimeter, trends that align in both time and location with the growth of the Great Green Wall. “We found, for the first time, that human-led intervention can effectively enhance carbon sequestration in even the most extreme arid landscapes, demonstrating the potential to transform a desert into a carbon sink and halt desertification,” said study co-author Yuk Yung, a professor of planetary science at Caltech and senior research scientist at NASA’s Jet Propulsion Laboratory. During the desert’s wet season, which runs from July to September, average monthly precipitation reached about 0.6 inches (16 millimeters), which is roughly two and a half times higher than in the dry season. That modest increase in rainfall had measurable effects. Vegetation cover and photosynthesis along the desert’s rim increased during wetter months, lowering atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations over the region from 416 parts per million in the dry season to 413 parts per million in the wet season. While a three-part-per-million shift may sound small, at scale it signals a net uptake of carbon tied to living plant systems rather than unstable sand deposits. Why this matters for long-term climate stability Previous research suggested that the Taklamakan might act as a carbon sink because desert sands can absorb carbon dioxide. However, that storage mechanism is vulnerable. Rising temperatures can cause air trapped in sand to expand and release additional carbon dioxide, making it an unreliable long-term solution. The new findings highlight something different: carbon storage rooted in vegetation. “Based on the results of this study, the Taklamakan Desert, although only around its rim, represents the first successful model demonstrating the possibility of transforming a desert into a carbon sink,” Yung said. The emphasis on “around its rim” is important. The vast interior of the desert remains largely unchanged. But the vegetated perimeter is now playing an active role in carbon sequestration. A model for other arid regions? Questions remain about whether the Great Green Wall will significantly curb desertification or sandstorm frequency over the long term. Large-scale ecological engineering carries trade-offs, and scientists continue to assess water use, species selection, and ecosystem resilience. Still, the carbon findings offer a new lens on the project’s value. Yung noted that the Taklamakan’s transformation “may serve as a valuable model for other desert regions.” If carefully designed and adapted to local conditions, similar interventions could help stabilize vulnerable landscapes while drawing carbon from the atmosphere. Turning a desert into a forest is not realistic nor necessarily desirable across entire arid regions. But reinforcing the margins, stabilizing dunes, and expanding vegetation buffers may provide a pragmatic pathway for climate mitigation in some of the planet’s harshest environments. The Taklamakan remains an immense desert. Yet along its borders, trees are reshaping the carbon equation, offering evidence that even extreme landscapes can respond to sustained, human-led restoration efforts. Source study: Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences— Human-induced biospheric carbon sink: Impact from the Taklamakan Afforestation Project     Did this solution stand out? Share it with a friend or support our mission by becoming an Emissary.The post China’s Great Green Wall turns Taklamakan desert into a growing carbon sink first appeared on The Optimist Daily: Making Solutions the News.

David French Thinks It Is Uncivil to Think that James Calarico Is an Awful Christian

In the opening hour of Tuesday’s Morning Joe, the MS NOW morning program’s co-host Joe Scarborough called the military operations in Iran a “remarkable military success” and then added anyone who said the strikes were not successful had an “agenda.” Immediately after his military praise, the two following guest panelists dissented with his comments, as one panelist said it might just be a “short-term setback” for Iran. Meanwhile the other panelist, Ret. Gen. Mark Hertling, called out Secretary of State Rubio for calling the U.S. military the “greatest military in the world.”   Today on Morning Joe, Joe Scarborough praised the US Military's "remarkable military success" and said those who say the military hasn't done a good job have an "agenda." pic.twitter.com/UNHvgsTvuY — Nick (@nspin310) March 10, 2026   Scarborough gave a somewhat surprising praise of the military aspect of the war, along with the actions and statement of Secretary Rubio: Militarily, it's been a remarkable military success. We have degraded their nuclear capabilities. We have degraded their ability to launch missiles across the region, possibly at the United States one day. We have degraded their Navy in an extraordinary way. We have degraded their air defenses in an extraordinary way. We have decapitated their leadership. We'll see who replaces the leadership. Militarily, every military person that's looked at what has happened will tell you that this has been extraordinarily successful.  He then added, “Anybody that tells you, first of all, that the military hasn't done an extraordinary job, they've got an agenda.” It’s unclear what got Joe in a good mood about the Iran operations, but good for him in actually sharing his true opinion. But, in the following guest segments, others clearly did not agree with parts of Joe’s assessments. Kim Ghattas, a contributing editor at the Financial Times, was the first to offer pushback:   Financial Times contributing editor Kim Ghattas said it was too soon to call it a success, calling it just a "short-term setback." pic.twitter.com/uITcGCy2US — Nick (@nspin310) March 10, 2026   I want to push back just a little bit first on the idea of a resounding military success on Iran. I actually - I'm not a military expert, and I will defer to military experts. I think it's actually still a little bit too soon to make that assessment. I know a lot has been degraded, a lot has been destroyed. But it's for, I think, still a short term setback for Iran.” Then, Ret. Gen. Hertling was asked his opinion on assessments saying the operation was a military success. He basically ignored the question and decided to show disdain for Rubio calling the US military the greatest in the world:   Retired General Mark Hertling was asked for his opinion on military success. Instead of answering a question posed to him, he took the moment to criticize Rubio for calling the US military the "greatest military in the world." pic.twitter.com/IiE85dgZtN — Nick (@nspin310) March 10, 2026   And what I will say is I'll make a recommendation to all politicians: Quit starting your sentences with, “we've got the greatest military in the world”. The military knows what they can and can't do, and what they can't do is end a war. That's up to the politicians and to continue to open your sentences like Secretary Rubio just did with how great the military is, is a waste of time.  You know, the military, for the most part, is pretty humble. There's not hubris involved. We don't need other people telling folks how good we are. We know what we can do, but we also know what we can't do. (...) Scarborough's rare moment was immediately overtaken by the guest’s panelist denial of military success. And he’s right, those who still feel the Iran operations haven’t been a success clearly have an agenda. The transcript is below. Click "expand": MS NOW’s Morning Joe March 10, 2026 6:23:48 AM Eastern (...) JOE SCARBOROUGH: Well, you know, again, Marco - Secretary of State Marco Rubio was actually the first to spell things out fairly clearly several days ago. And that's positive. It's just important as anybody looks at this conflict, looks at this war, looks at what's going on, there are two sides of this.  Militarily, it's been a remarkable military success. We have degraded their nuclear capabilities. We have degraded their ability to launch missiles across the region, possibly at the United States one day. We have degraded their Navy in an extraordinary way. We have degraded their air defenses in an extraordinary way. We have decapitated their leadership. We'll see who replaces the leadership. Militarily, every military person that's looked at what has happened will tell you that this has been extraordinarily successful.  Now, I would have said the same thing about Iraq in March and April of 2003. But, thus far, militarily, we're doing great. Our challenge right now, as the general said, is on the political side.  Anybody that tells you, first of all, that the military hasn't done an extraordinary job, they've got an agenda. I mean, they're obviously - there have been tragedies - but militarily, the operations have hit what they've wanted to hit and degraded what they wanted to degrade.  The problem comes on the political side where you have a war that's unpopular at home, you've got gas prices rising. That's going to be unpopular at home. You have in Iran, you have a leader now that's a successor to his father, who seems to be even more extreme. This is a regional conflict. Needs to be kind of put back in there and right now there's no one to negotiate with.  So, we have two different things happening right now. Militarily a success. Politically there are things that need to be developed and things that need to be thought through and things that need to be brought to a resolution. Because right now they're two different realities in this war. One extremely successful, the other not successful yet.  Let's bring in contributing editor at the Financial Times, Kim Ghattas. She's in Lebanon this morning just outside of Beirut. And the Washington Post, David Ignatius has the first question. David? (...) 6:27:17 AM KIM GHATTAS (Contributing Editor, Financial Times): David, great to speak to you, and thanks for having me, Mika and Joe. I want to push back just a little bit first on the idea of a resounding military success on Iran. I actually - I'm not a military expert, and I will defer to military experts. I think it's actually still a little bit too soon to make that assessment. I know a lot has been degraded, a lot has been destroyed. But it's for, I think, still a short term setback for Iran. And they still have the capacity to do a lot of damage in the region, including through some of their proxy militias, like Hezbollah in Iran the Shia militias in Iraq. And they will now work to try to live to fight another day.  So, the concern in the region is also that this is just the first of many such fights unless we find a way forward that delivers more positive results, more constructive results. And this requires diplomacy, but also positive results for the Iranian people.  (...) 6:30:17 AM SCARBOROUGH: You know, Willie, what's so fascinating is we listen to Kim and talking about, well, maybe the military operations not as successful as Americans are saying it is, because this is still a very, very dangerous region, a very dangerous neighborhood, which parallels with what David heard earlier in his reporting that he reported earlier this morning from a leader in the region saying, “don't leave us with with a battered, bruised and angry Iran.”  And of course, that leader was talking about more military strikes. Kim's talking about the importance of diplomacy, but there's no doubt we have a lot of allies in the region concerned about America just cutting and running and leaving them with an angry and wounded Iran. WILLIE GEIST: Including Israel. Yeah, all of our allies in the region, for sure. And I guess, General Hertling. It just depends, again, on what your definition of success is. Does it mean taking out missile capabilities, as Marco Rubio said? Does it mean obliterating, as President Trump has said, the nuclear program? Does it mean regime change? We're certainly not on a path to regime change at the moment.  So just tactically, strategically, from your point of view as a general, the military campaign, just to add to this conversation that Joe and Kim are having, how is it going from the U.S. perspective? LT. GEN. MARK HERTLING (RET.): Well, from the standpoint of the military, and I think unlike Kim, I can speak to this. And what I will say is I'll make a recommendation to all politicians: Quit starting your sentences with, “we've got the greatest military in the world”. The military knows what they can and can't do, and what they can't do is end a war. That's up to the politicians and to continue to open your sentences like Secretary Rubio just did with how great the military is, is a waste of time.  You know, the military, for the most part, is pretty humble. There's not hubris involved. We don't need other people telling folks how good we are. We know what we can do, but we also know what we can't do. And that's the ground we're in right now. So I can say that. I make that recommendation to all politicians, knock it off. - MIKA BRZEZINSKI: Yeah.  HERTLING: - Worry about what you've got to do to end wars.

“You may think that you have seen the funniest, greatest clip of a trans meltdown,” says BlazeTV host Sara Gonzales, but you’d be wrong.On this episode of “Sara Gonzales Unfiltered,” Sara plays what she believes is one of the most, if not the most, unhinged video of a transgender-identifying person losing their marbles on the internet. The video, posted by self-described political commentator Ryley Niemi, captures Niemi interacting with a man pretending to be a woman. Niemi repeatedly calls the man, who has fake breasts and dresses in female clothing, "sir" while asking questions like, "What do you think of Nick Fuentes?"This triggers an enraged reaction from the man, who repeatedly insists that misgendering is “a felony” in the state of California.When Niemi correctly counters him by pointing out that misgendering is “not a felony,” the man responds, “You are wrong and dangerous, dangerous, dangerous wrong.”He then begins to scream, “Felony one! Felony one! Anybody else want to commit a serious hate crime?!”The humorous encounter reminds Sara of another viral video in which another man dressed as a woman screams, “It’s ma’am!” over and over again to a store cashier who called him sir. As he storms out of the store dropping expletives and challenging the cashier to “take it outside,” he angrily kicks over a product display.“Total man energy,” Sara laughs, admitting that she “can’t pick” which trans rage video is the funniest.“Trans videos are like Lays potato chips. You can't just pick one,” she laughs.To see the two videos plus other top contenders, watch the episode above.Want more from Sara Gonzales?To enjoy more of Sara's no-holds-barred takes on news and culture, subscribe to BlazeTV — the largest multi-platform network of voices who love America, defend the Constitution, and live the American dream.

President Donald Trump made it clear that oil prices were one of his top concerns as the U.S.-Israeli strikes on Iran enters into an 11th day.The president threatened Iran on Monday after it was reported that Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps had reportedly begun laying mines in the Strait of Hormuz.'We are using the same Technology and Missile capabilities deployed against Drug Traffickers to permanently eliminate any boat or ship attempting to mine the Hormuz Strait.' "If Iran has put out any mines in the Hormuz Strait, and we have no reports of them doing so, we want them removed, IMMEDIATELY! If for any reason mines were placed, and they are not removed forthwith, the Military consequences to Iran will be at a level never seen before," he wrote on Truth Social.It is estimated that about 20% of the world's oil moves through the strait, and any interruption leads to a spike in oil prices. Those prices skyrocketed over the weekend but have since dropped somewhat."If, on the other hand, they remove what may have been placed, it will be a giant step in the right direction! Additionally, we are using the same Technology and Missile capabilities deployed against Drug Traffickers to permanently eliminate any boat or ship attempting to mine the Hormuz Strait," he continued."They will be dealt with quickly and violently. BEWARE!" the president added.Very soon after, he followed up with another post applauding the military for destroying "10 inactive mine laying boats and/or ships."Secretary of War Pete Hegseth said that Tuesday would include the "most intense day of strikes" in the war."We're crushing the enemy in an overwhelming display of technical skill and military force," Hegseth said at a media briefing. "We will not relent until the enemy is totally and decisively defeated."RELATED: Rubio warns Iran against 'suicidal' closing of Strait of Hormuz; Vance says retaliation will be met with 'overwhelming force' State Sec. Marco Rubio had warned Iran before the strikes that the entire world would turn against the country if it mined the Strait of Hormuz. "If they mine the Straits of Hormuz, the Chinese are going to pay a huge price," Rubio said in June. "And every other country in the world is going to pay a huge price. We will too. It will have some impact on us. It will have a lot more impact on the rest of the world, a lot more impact on the rest of the world." He added: "That would be a suicidal move on their part because I think the whole world would come against them if they did that."Oil prices are up about 40% over the last month, which includes the beginning of the strikes on Iran.Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

Here We GO! Georgia US House 14 Special Election General Results LIVE With Twitchy