It's more of a question of what they have to gain. They can instantly get a lot of money to stop the attacks. It also gives them the biggest tool they have back. If they continue to stop shipping, and require a toll, they don't have that as leverage to use later. It's just the standard. Think about if they were doing that before the invasion. The US would just leave and give them nothing, because it's the status quo.

You completely ignored my point. Leaving the region include stopping all aids to Israel and aiding all sanctions on Iran and for this to happen you need the majority of the congress to approve it which is not the case right now

Korea and Desert Storm being seaming flukes at this point

It's even less stellar than that. Korea was a stalemate. Desert Storm achieved its limited objectives but didn't resolve the underlying problems, so we got Gulf War 2 (which had poorly defined objectives and which failed on a far greater scale).

There were far smaller skirmishes such as the Grenada invasion and the NATO intervention in the former Yugoslavia that were arguably more successful at their near-term, limited aims.

If there's any lesson to be learned, it's that the Powell Doctrine should be reinstated. Also, that imperialist interference is a loser's game, and initiatives by broad international coalitions are less likely to degenerate into clusterfucks.

I think this is different given the context of this war. It’s not an insurgency or an unfamiliar jungle it’s just a super power losing against a “lesser” military. In the process also losing influence over 20% of the world’s oil supply, which is the oil that gives the American petrodollar its value. This stupid ass and unnecessary war could change the power structure of the entire world.

Fair enough, meant no offense

Yes