Tangle Podcast – Special Edition: Isaac Saul Interviews David French

Episode Date: March 15, 2026
Host: Isaac Saul
Guest: David French

Episode Overview

In this special edition, Isaac Saul sits down with New York Times columnist, lawyer, and author David French to unpack several burning issues: the intense backlash to French’s recent James Talarico piece, the ongoing war between the United States and Iran, and the legal, political, and social reverberations of these events. The conversation delves into the constitutional questions around the Iran conflict, the shifting norms of war powers, and the experience of moderates—particularly moderate Christians—within the contemporary Republican Party.

Key Discussion Points & Insights

The Legal Status of the U.S.-Iran War

(Starting at 02:05)

• Is it a War?
  • Both Isaac and David agree: the conflict with Iran is a war, rejecting ongoing semantic debates.
  • David French [02:37]:
    “It’s a war. I mean, there’s no credible argument it’s not a war. I mean, come on.”
• Who Decides on War?
  • French insists that the current U.S. offensive against Iran fits precisely the scenario the U.S. Constitution envisioned requiring Congressional authorization.
  • He draws clear distinctions between edge cases (short-term, defensive actions) and prolonged campaigns, emphasizing that, “…none of that applies here. This is a direct attack on another nation state, a decapitation strike against its leaders.” (French, 03:56)
• Presidential Precedent
  • French disputes the idea that presidents routinely bypass Congress for significant operations, citing George W. Bush (Iraq, Afghanistan), George H.W. Bush (Gulf War), and even Obama (UN-backed Libya intervention) as examples where Congressional or UN authorization was sought.
  • French [06:48]:
    “…the most recent major operations against nation states had either congressional or UN backing and often both. So [Trump] is really well out of bounds.”

Public Misconceptions on War Powers

(10:02–12:34)

• Origins of Cynicism
  • Saul observes widespread resignation and cynicism among the public about presidents circumventing Congress.
  • French argues this stems from misunderstanding, particularly around Obama’s use of prior authorizations (AUMF) for Al Qaeda and Iraq. For Obama, “90% plus of his military activity was actually under congressional authorization.” (French, 11:02)
• Edge Cases vs. Full-Scale War
  • French reiterates that short-term or defensive actions (e.g., responding to Houthi missile strikes) don’t always require advance legislative approval—but the current Iran campaign goes far beyond that threshold.

The Executive’s Justifications for Bypassing Congress

(12:34–16:23)

• Trump Administration’s Defense
  • Saul "steel mans" Trump’s position: There was alleged urgent intelligence sharing with Israel, supposedly leaving no time for Congressional debate because of operational security.
• French’s Response
  • He dismisses that reasoning, noting the build-up was “the least secret thing in the world... happening for weeks.”
  • Notable Quote [13:38]:
    “…there was a big flashing warning already, this giant military buildup. So it was the least secret thing in the world that we had a big military buildup. That was plenty of time for him to go to Congress.”
• Lost Strategic Opportunity
  • French contends that, “had he secured an authorization for the use of military force, he might have had a much stronger hand in the negotiations going forward.” (French, 15:22)

International Law versus U.S. Constitutional Law

(17:39–22:42)

• International Legitimacy
  • French observes a paradox: under international law (UN Charter/just war doctrine), the U.S. arguably has a better case for war with Iran than under its own Constitution.
  • He outlines the international criteria: right to self-defense, defense of others, and prevention of crimes against humanity.
    • Iran fits some of these, due to attacks on U.S. forces, support for violence in the region, and participation in atrocities.
• Constitutional Requirements Remain
  • However, French circles back to the need for Congressional approval:
    • “…even if you have reason under international law, that doesn’t give us carte blanche under our Constitution.”
      (French, 21:58)
  • The Constitution, he stresses, obligates taking these arguments to Congress for approval, regardless of broader justifications.

The Role (and Abdication) of Congress

(22:42–23:37)

• Congressional Inaction
  • Saul voices disbelief at Congress’s unwillingness to reclaim its war-making authority, noting the failed War Powers Resolution.
  • French's Analysis: Congressional passivity is “rational from their frame of reference”—implying a complex interplay of political incentives and public expectations.
  • (Elaboration cut off as the preview ends.)

Notable Quotes & Memorable Moments

• David French on Precedents [06:48]:
  “Trump’s defenders have sort of…obscured the view of the situation by essentially trying to wrongly insert him into a modern trend that is not nearly as clear cut towards executive authority as they’re saying.”

• David French on Congressional Authorization [07:27]:
  “It’s a war that should have been declared by Congress. He has departed from past practice and it creates massive problems politically, legally, militarily, that he did not do this.”

• David French on Obama-era Authority [11:02]:
  “A lot of people saw the military operations from the Obama administration and…forget 90% plus of his military activity was actually under congressional authorization.”

• David French on Element of Surprise [14:00]:
  “…Iran knew the hammer was about to fall, or at least it had to know that it was very likely that the hammer was about to fall.”

• David French on International vs. Domestic Legality [21:58]:
  “Even if you have reason under international law, that doesn’t give us carte blanche under our Constitution.”

Timestamps for Major Segments

• [01:33] – Episode introduction, guest welcome
• [02:05] – Is the Iran conflict a war? Legal framing
• [03:56] – The Constitution, Congress, and war powers
• [10:02] – Why do Americans accept presidents bypassing Congress?
• [12:34] – Trump administration’s operational security defense
• [13:38] – Refuting the “no time for Congress” argument
• [17:39] – International law perspective
• [22:42] – Congressional abdication, War Powers Resolution

Summary & Takeaways

• David French provides a detailed legal and historical case that the current U.S. war in Iran is exactly the kind of conflict meant to require Congressional approval—a precedent Trump is violating.
• While international law may provide multiple justifications for U.S. involvement in Iran, none of that obviates the need for following American constitutional procedures.
• Public misconceptions—especially around previous administrations’ conduct—have created a fatalism, enabling Congress’s ongoing passivity about war powers.
• French warns that bypassing Congress not only violates the Constitution, but also weakens the political resolve and legitimacy needed for sustained conflicts.

For further discussions, subscribe to the Tangle podcast and newsletter at readtangle.com.