Loading summary
Transcript1 lines
- [00:05]
A
It's Tuesday, March 31, 2026. I'm Albert Mohler, and this is the Briefing, a daily analysis of news and events from a Christian worldview. We really are living in interesting times. And the current military action undertaken by the United States and Israel against Iran is incredibly illuminating. There are so many issues that are laid bare, made visible precisely because of military conflict. And one of the things we need to understand from human history is that's a principle. It's often the case that it is in the crucible of some kind of combat, some kind of military action, that all kinds of things become visible that were not visible before. Now, the most obvious thing that can become visible that wasn't visible before is either unexpected military strength or unexpected military weakness. Either of those can be exposed. You can also have other things exposed, such, such as. And President Trump has been really loud about this. Loud in very unconventional terms, but very loud about this. And that is that in the context of combat, you really do find out who are your friends and who are not, or who are your faithful friends and those who are less faithful, who consider their national interest to be linked to your national interests and those who do not. And this is where President Trump has been very loud. He's been very loud against European nations, especially NATO member nations, that, as he sees it, just aren't doing their part. And, you know, one of the big issues here is the fact that the President and the Prime Minister of Israel undertook to take this action, but they didn't do so simply because of Israeli or American interests. They did so because of the overwhelming threat posed by Iran for a number of decades. And so I think the President of the United States has some very legitimate reasons for being frustrated with America's allies. Now, America's allies are also rather upset with the United States and perhaps with Israel, too, but in particular with the United States. And that is because they want prior consultation. But one of the biggest things we note is that the speed of this kind of military action, both in terms of the threat and the response, it is now coming without the possibility of the kind of procedural niceties that Europe considers so important. So it's going to be very, very interesting to see where this goes. Some are seeing it as a threat to the Western alliance. I'll simply say, I certainly hope not. It really can't be that neither our European partners, nor the United States, nor other allies, and you could go all the way to the South Pacific and look to Australia, New Zealand, et cetera. None of us can afford for this to be a major division in the alliance. But any honest person is going to have to admit that this story isn't over. And by the time it is over, whenever it is over, an awful lot of what had been invisible is going to be visible, some of it visible already. But we're in this to the point that it's already clear that some things are not easy yet clear they will be. Combat is one of the great clarifiers of so many different issues. But we've talked already about the fact that when you're looking at what's undertaken right now in Iran, the big surprise, at least on the part of many, is that Iran remains so strong. And you say, well, its air Force has been obliterated, its navy has been obliterated. President Trump has made that point. Yes, but its missiles have not been obliterated. Now we come back again to a pattern which is known as asymmetrical warfare. And asymmetry means there's no symmetrical pattern. When you're talking about the United States and Iran, you're talking about two massively different civilizations, two massively different military capacities. Just to make the point clear about the latter, the United States can move thousands of troops, multi billion dollar armaments, the most advanced air force in the world, massive aircraft carriers, including the largest aircraft carrier in the world, the United States can deploy all of these things. And Iran at this point has, well, none of those things. But Iran does have one geography, the geography that Iran has threatened to control and now effectively does control in. Shutting down The Strait of Hormuz is one of the most crucial passageways for the transit of oil in terms of the planet. And Iran, which had threatened to shut down the Strait of Hormuz, has now effectively done so. And here's the sad thing, it can continue to do so with this asymmetrical threat. It can do so even as it just has some rockets, ballistic missiles and all the rest, or mines. It can do so because it is a small power up against a great power. And this is where you understand the limitations of a great power. I think in terms of the Christian worldview, this gets really interesting. In a fallen world, how do these things fallout? Okay, for some clarification, I want to go back to a touchstone argument made in 1969, made by none other than Henry Kissinger, who was at that point the national security advisor to President Richard M. Nixon. Now, by the time this comes out in January 1969, just understand that's the very month that Richard Nixon is first inaugurated as President of The United States. So this argument is made as the Nixon administration is coming into power, facing the challenge of the communist insurgency in North Vietnam and what was called the Vietnam conflict, later just called the Vietnam War. And the big issue is that America went in with massive, massive strength. And that massive strength got ground down because of, well, it's the same thing, asymmetrical warfare. Henry Kissinger had been a professor at Harvard University, very well known, very connected to the world of international diplomacy and national policy and foreign policy in particular. So he was well known in that community. He'd already been a staffer, but now he comes back on as the senior national security official to the President of the United States in one of the hottest moments in American history. So, January 1969. What kind of argument is Henry Kissinger going to make? He makes the argument in a seminal article published in Foreign affairs, very prestigious journal published in January 1969. The title of the article is the Vietnam Negotiations. All right, so what does he say? I want to read to you what has gone down as the most famous statement in this historic essay by Henry Kissinger. Here it goes, quote, the North Vietnamese and Viet Cong fighting in their own country needed merely to keep in being forces sufficiently strong to dominate the population after the United States tired of the war. We fought a military war. Our opponents fought a political one. We sought physical attrition. Our opponents aimed for our psychological exhaustion. In the process, we lost sight of one of the cardinal maxims of guerrilla war. The guerrilla wins if he does not lose. The conventional army loses if it does not win. That is a fascinating argument. Let me repeat the killer line. The guerrilla wins if he does not lose. The conventional army loses if it does not win. Now, there is a very strong case that what we face right now in Iran is at least a shadow or a parallel to what is going on in this particular challenge. Henry Kissinger describes with the United States up against communist government in North Vietnam and the guerrilla insurgency, they sponsored incursions in the south. The Viet Cong, and they were fighting for what they saw as their own country. Kissinger was right. They, quote, needed merely to keep in being forces sufficiently strong to dominate the the population. After the United States tired of the war. Now, Kissinger's point, and of course, he was speaking on behalf of the new administration, the Nixon administration. His point was the United States could not afford merely to grow tired of the war. His point is that the United States would lose to a vastly smaller, weaker force if it simply declared victory and went home. And this is where the maxim that he offered here becomes so important. The guerrilla wins if he does not lose. The conventional army loses if it does not win. So that's an argument for the United States and Israel, and in particular, an American argument for the United States staying in this until a measurable victory is won. President Trump has stated aims for this military effort, and in the background to that is the larger problem of Iran for half a century as a deadly opponent of the United States. But behind that, most pressingly, at least it would be believed, is the effort to deny Iran the capacity of building a nuclear weapon. And there have been debates about this. But there's new information coming out indicating that the Israelis and the Americans might well have had information indicating that Iran was closer than had been thought to the ability to weaponize their radioactive material. In any event, they were threatening to do so. In any event, it was a question of time. It was when, not if. If the United States decided to go forward with Israel. And of course, it's complicated, because every single military situation like this is complicated, and the world's complicated. More on that in just a moment. The fact is that the Kissinger conundrum here nevertheless remains. Iran is still a part of the equation precisely because even as it is almost defeated, almost turns out to be a more important word than defeated. Major news reports coming out in both the national and the international press indicating that it might well be that the enormous reduction in the number of missiles and rockets fired by Iran was not an indication that they were running out of such ammunition, such munitions, but rather that they were timing it in order to be maximally effective. And, you know, here's the thing. It turns out that you can shut shipping down in the Strait of Hormuz Something like 20% of the world's oil capacity. You can shut it down with about five missiles rather than 50 per day. And once you know that, you can just store them up and use them more slowly. And it appears that Iran has learned the lesson. It is a lesson that Iran could have learned from North Korea, could have learned from North Vietnam, any number of other military situations in which Western forces never pressed on to what could be defined as total victory. Now, those two situations did turn out differently because you still have a viable state in terms of South Korea. North Korea didn't just overtake. It wasn't successful, as has happened in Vietnam, where the communist insurgency basically was victorious, eventually toppling the regime in South Vietnam and the entire country became a unified communist state. So it turned out differently. But the point is that in both Cases. Nonetheless, Western forces just grew exhausted and backed out. In the case of Vietnam, by the time the Americans left, just about everyone knew it was only a matter of time before the Communists would take the entire territory. There are some who are arguing for the United States to end this military effort quickly, just declare victory and get out. But the words of Henry Kissinger here do really haunt any statement to that effect. These warnings are very, very clear if the guerrilla continues to fight. And this, of course, was in the context of the Vietnam conflict. But if the insurgent, weaker force is not defeated, it wins. If the larger force doesn't win in a conclusive sense, it eventually loses. That's a part of the asymmetry. Well, all right, a couple of other very interesting things related to the war, the military effort in Iran. Regardless of what you want to call it, one thing is, have you noticed how many things are related to the situation in Iran? How the military action in Iran is now being factored into just about everything, from the cost of hiring a car on Uber or Lyft or something like that, or buying groceries or planting crops. It is a reminder to us that everything in the world economy is eventually interconnected. And so right now, of course, the first thing you would think about with Iran shutting down the Strait of Hormuz, the first thing you think about is a rise in oil prices because of a constriction of the global oil petroleum trade. You could just see that coming. And of course, it has come. President Trump says it will be short in duration. Who knows if that's true or not? If this war continues, if the military effort continues, if Iran is not subdued, the then Iran may seek to control the Straits of Hormuz and basically force the prices to go way up, which, by the way, is not entirely to Iran's disadvantage. Here's where other things get rather complicated. The oil price goes up. Who benefits from that? Well, you say American oil producers and all the rest, maybe a bit, but over the long term, not so much. The real beneficiary of this has been Russia. Russia was in truth, running out of money in terms of its military action in Ukraine. All kinds of Western sanctions keeping other nations from buying Russian oil were in place. And now with the global price of oil going up, even Russia's illegal oil trade is going to increase the money in the nation's coffers. It is perhaps in one sense, even a financial rescue of Vladimir Putin. Now, this is where things get even more complicated, because Putin and the Iranians are allies, and so they would seem to have a common front. Except for the fact that Russia doesn't exactly want this oil crisis to be short lived. It's to Russia's advantage that it lasts a long time. On the other hand, Iran has another strategic ally and this one is communist. This one is the People's Republic of China. It's China. China has been an ally of Iran. But you know what? China has to import petroleum. And China doesn't want to pay more for that oil. Russia wants it to cost more because Russia will get the money. China doesn't want it to cost more because that's more costly for the Chinese economy, which is already in a slowdown. And so you even have Iran's closest allies, Russia and China. Just think about that trio for a moment and you recognize that Russia and China do not have really equal interests in terms of how this turns out. And then you've got Kansas, Nebraska, Iowa, and you say, what in the world am I talking about with states in the American Midwest? I'm talking about the need for fertilizer. And fertilizer is crucially important. And fertilizer also depends upon some of the very same materials in terms of the world market, by the way, in two ways, both in the manufacture of the fertilizer and the transport of the fertilizer. So you've got American farmers who are always, always having to fight for the survival of their project. And especially something like the family farm or even something like several family farms put together. It is a massive challenge. And if the price of fertilizer goes significantly higher, and if the supplies of fertilizer also go higher, I mean, it could affect the price of food, it could affect the price of a loaf of bread or a pork chop in the United States, because all of this is, is eventually tied together. Now, agricultural experts in the US Say that's not so much a factor for this year's plantings because the fertilizers were already on hand. But you know what, that just points to the fact that if this thing goes on, there could be a fertilizer crisis the next planting season in the United States. So how is that for good news? Well, all right. How much more complicated can this get? Well, a lot more complicated. For one thing, the shipping industry, it is operating in a way many Americans wouldn't think. You have multi million dollar ships with multi million dollar cargoes, and we're talking about lots of millions. And you have an insurance industry that underwrites the ships and the shipping, both the ship itself and the contents. And you know what those Insurance rates are going to go absolutely through the ceiling if you have an endangered transit zone, or for that matter, multiple endangered transit zones. And so we could be talking not only about the Strait of Hormuz, but also, given Iran's allies, we could be talking about the Red Sea. You add that together, it is a real threat to the stability of the international economy. And that issue of insurance is one that simply reminds us that risk is something that is factored into the economy. Most of us don't think about it every day. We don't have to think about it every day. But how much of, say, the money that you pay for a car, how much of that is actually a margin in which a considerable portion is something that comes down to liability insurance or insurance coverage for various stages, even the suppliers, the manufacturers, and all the rest. Not to mention the fact that at least historically, when it comes to American manufacture, one of the biggest parts, most expensive parts of a car you might buy is actually labor and insurance, health coverage for those who are the people involved, especially through the United Auto Workers in various plants under union contract. It's just massive. It's so much bigger, more comprehensive, and more connected than most Americans would ever think. And then you add to this liquid petroleum. All right, so why would liquid petroleum be going up so much in cost, if indeed the problem is really oil? That's because it's never simply one or the other. Some of the same nations in the region, including very close Arab allies to the United States, they are major sources for liquid petroleum. Now, liquid petroleum is even more complex than oil in terms of how to get it out and how to transport it. Okay, now, one way to transport liquid petroleum gas is over pipeline systems. But let's just say reaching long distances, that becomes very problematic. So we're talking about shipping. Well, okay, then how complex is it to ship liquid petroleum gas? Well, just consider this. You have to pressurize it. That's after getting it out of the ground and directing it to a ship. You have to have a ship constructed to hold it. It's going to have to be highly pressurized, because in order to transport it, you're putting this gas in under high pressure. And here's the other thing. It has to be cooled by some reckonings down to negative 58 degrees. But just to show you how complex the economy can be, you have nations and entire industries that have made the decision, we're going to use liquid petroleum gas. It's reliable, it's transportable, we can afford it. And it takes calculating your investments and your systems, your engineering, to use liquid petroleum gas. It's not just a switch to turn to some other form of energy. But here's the thing. This particular flow, energy flow has been disrupted several times in the last several years. Enough so that if this is lasting and it may already have an impact, if this lasts very long, there are nations and other entities that are likely to make the decision we're going to go for an alternative form of energy. And so this could have vast ramifications, echo effects, reverberations through the entire culture. There could be teachers in rural America whose retirement plan is effectively impacted by the performance of some of these energy investments in ways that she or he never actually even knows. In other words, all of this is complex and all of this is going to hit just about everywhere eventually. The question is to what degree, for how long, what's the ultimate impact? But you know, this is where you have to have an honest conversation, and this is what is lacking in most political environments. The honest conversation would be just how necessary was this military action? If it was necessary? And I believe there's good justification to say that it was necessary certainly over the long period of history and the conflict from Iran, the threat from Iran. Alright, then how do we have to see this through in order to make certain that we don't have a worse situation than prior to the military action rather than a more promising one? You also have to put in a different context some of the threats coming, for example, from President Trump to the Iranians and saying, as he said yesterday, that if Iran does not cooperate, basically agree to some kind of peace settlement that would open the Strait of Hormuz and meet other American and Israeli objectives, that if Iran doesn't do that, the United States would move to his word, is obliterate once again Iran's energy grid. And I think many Americans hearing that would say, well, of course Iran is going to say we're going to surrender. We're going to do whatever it takes not to destroy the energy grid. But what if the regime is so determined to hold on to power, it is willing for its own national economy basically to be obliterated so long as that Shiite Islamist government remains in power? That's something that is very difficult to factor in to this kind of military equation. And in the end it just affirms all over again that there is no major military situation, which is entirely and exclusively a military question. Okay, well, we're talking about cost. I want to shift entirely to a different issue. It is still about money, but it's another reminder that when you talk about money, you're talking about morality. Okay, we're going to turn to the Washington Post. I don't know if these two articles are related in any way. Different reporters, different sections of the paper. But the Washington Post has had just in the last several days two very interesting articles about rising costs. Okay, so what are the costs rising on? That has the attention of, of the Washington Post, Number one, for teenagers, high school proms. Number two, at least, presumably for those who are a bit older. Wedding costs, particularly related to bachelor trips and bachelorette trips. Now both of these articles are premised upon the fact that there has been a spectacular explosive inflation in the cost of these events. High school promotion is becoming an extremely expensive event. Way outside, by the way. Any kind of finances that could be expected of a high school student anywhere. We're talking about massive expenditure. And for example, speaking of the prom, Michelle Singletary for the Washington Post says, quote, with elaborately staged promposals, that's an invitation to a prom, in case you didn't get it. Lavish before and after parties. Say yes to the dress. Esque expensive gowns. The prom can resemble red carpet events. One Philadelphia mother, okay, she's being called out here, don't know who she is, but a mother in Philadelphia listen to this. Quote, spent $27,000 on a pre prom send off party that included a Cinderella themed castle, end quote. So that's another point that really shows up in this prom article and that is that the massive escalation in cost is not equilateral when it comes to boys and girls, young men and young women. We're really talking about massive increase in expenditure when it comes to young women and a massive increase in expenditures when it comes to the families of young women and a massive increase in expenditures when it comes to the mothers in a lot of these equations. Again, the article actually calls out the fact that this lavish party was hosted by the mom of one of the high school seniors. She's the one who spent $27,000 not on the prom, but on a party before the prom. Jay Zagorski, identified as a professor at the Questrom School of Business at Boston University, has created what he calls a prom index to track the costs of events like proms over the years. According to the Post, what he has found surprised him. Quote, as an economist focused on wealth and income, he said it's important to examine consumer spending habits, including teenagers financial choices. But his interest in researching prom inflation wasn't just academic. He says, quote, I have three children. When the third child went to the prom, I was just like, seriously? One of the big concerns here, by the way, just even without just the escalation of money in itself being the issue, as the Post says, the extraordinary spending for proms in particular can alienate the less fortunate and overshadow the gathering's intent, which is to enjoy people's company in a shared experience. Increasingly, that shared experience is becoming stratified by economics. Now, sometimes the stratification doesn't take place within the school. There are private schools where the stratification just takes place by the fact that they are private schools. But even within these private schools, you have some of these private parties that are just examples of what's rightly called out here as conspicuous consumption. Now, I'll simply say, as a Christian, that there are also other concerns about so many of these problems in terms of the behaviors that are expected. About 20 years ago, news stories started coming out about parents paying for, say, hotel rooms for teenagers so that they would have a safe place place to go after the prom. You connect the dots. That just tells you something about the moral decay of the entire society. Now, once again, I'm talking to a lot of parents this morning and I know you would not do this, and young people, you would not want this. But the fact is, it's important to recognize that in the larger culture, this is the kind of thing that's happening. And very quickly, just as we end, the same thing is happening. It turns out the Washington Post says when it comes to bachelor and bachelorette trips, and in this case there is another gender distinction, but it's the opposite. It turns out that the bachelor events are in many cases way more expensive than the bachelorette events. The Washington Post says maybe that's because the young men are making more money. But the other factor is they involve, in general terms, usually much smaller groups. So in other words, if a young man is going to throw this kind of event as the last bachelor event, he's going to get his male friends together, they're going to play golf somewhere, they're going to go fishing somewhere. Most of the male events are around doing something fun and they can be very, very expensive. On the female side, it's not so much about doing things as being together. And when it comes to conspicuous consumption, it can be visible there too, including things that just aren't appropriate for the briefing. You also won't be surprised to know that in both the proms and especially in the pre wedding events, there's an entire industry that is now built up with consultants offering services and also just upping the ante continually. And one last point. Guess how much of this modeling takes place. It's not so much in conversation, it's not so much in advertising. It is on Instagram and social media where you see somebody's done this next thing. And at least some brides, and for that matter grooms as well, are deciding I can do that. Even better. At least a part of me is probably just someone older. Just thinking back to the fact that when my wife and I got married, just paying for the absolute necessities was a tremendous challenge. The idea that somehow there would be an expensive trip beforehand. Let's just say neither we nor our friends ever imagined such a thing. All this has been redefined in what is now described, and I think probably accurately, as the new experience economy. Now you know. Thanks for listening to the briefing. For more information, go to my website@albertmohler.com you can follow me on X or Twitter by going to x.comalbertmohler for information on the Southern Baptist Theological seminary, go to SBTS Eduardo for information on Boyce College, just go to boycecollege.com I'll meet you again tomorrow for the briefing.