WSJ Editorial Board on the closure of Hormuz and US efforts to strike Iranian coastal missile sites to open it after Iran's IRGC rejected the terms of the Memorandum to open Hormuz. What purpose did the Memorandum serve? DJT let JD Vance come up with a negotiated settlement -accepting efforts of Pakistan, Turkey and Qatar to mediate a way out to open Hormuz- to make some concessions such as ending Iran sanctions, and opening oil markets to Iranian oil exports, ending the naval blockade, putting nuclear weapons development for negotiations during the 90 day period after the ceasefire. The IRGC military inside Iran accepted it under pressure from the elected president Pezeshkian and Turkey, Pakistan. Yet its approach has been to accept one day and the following day issue statements contradicting this the next day. Some of the clauses were kept deliberately vague on the insistence of IRGC or worded in a way that IRGC could point to their interpretation and reject efforts for a ceasefire and opening Hormuz. In the light of this experience 2 conclusions were reached by the US- the IRGC makes decisions for Iran not the elected president Pezeshkian and IRGC does not want to open Hormuz except by charging tolls as away to finance its missile operations. In this kind of a situation how does the US respond effectively without getting into a land conflict that distracts US from its domestic goals of building a strong economy, cost of living action, and rebuilding US infrastructure? This Editorial says Schumer's effort to block defense bills does not serve the national interest. Schumer's point to exercise caution to focus on domestic goals of rebuilding the US economy serves the Nation well, yet continuously blocking the president to gain in the midterms is not a good strategy. Lyrarc points out that the best way is for the US to continue the naval blockade if Iran won't allow Hormuz to be opened to all ships without tolls. And step two would be to find enough alternative sources of oil to make up for the 20 million barrels from Hormuz. Some of this could come from reducing use of oil and gas which China has done by importing less oil from 12.5 million barrels a day to 8.5 million barrels a day, effectively doing without the 4 million barrels a day it got from Hormuz. By doing this the US can avoid the effort to open Hormuz through alternative sources of oil supplies, avoid being drawn into a prolonged conflict it does not need. Achieving its objectives on nuclear and Hormuz in a different way exercizing patience and using wisdom alongside strength. That course means the US would work with the European Union, UK, China, India, oil companies and other oil producing regions to forgo Hormuz oil as Lyrarc has proposed as the most effective answer to threats about Hormuz, and continuing the naval blockade. ...