A (3:03)

So, to put it bluntly and simply, the strategy, the worldview, the absolute determination of the Islamic Republic there in Iran has been the eradication of Israel and the removal of the United States as a threat, at the very least, if not the eradication of the United States, then the elimination of the United States as a threat, trying to accomplish basically extinguishing Israel. Iran has done many things. Direct action, yes, but more often indirect subversion by supporting Israel, Islamic armies or militias such as Hezbollah and Hamas. And by the way, that covers a lot of territory, because in Islam, that means not only Shiite groups, but also at least complicity with some Islamist terrorist organizations associated more with Sunni Islam. Okay, that gets really complicated. But let's just say that's very dangerous for the United States. And you also have efforts to fund all kinds of opposition protests, et cetera, intended to, well, let's just say, incentivize the American people to back off of any military engagement with Iran. Now, Iran's moderate term strategy has been very clear from the beginning, and that is to obtain a nuclear weapon that could be at least conceivably, turned into a nuclear missile, a ballistic missile that could reach either the United States or the vital interests of the United States to make it impossible to, according to their reasoning, for the United States to take any direct military action against Iran. And you know what? That logic prevailed for quite a long time. The logic of successive presidencies, seven presidents so far that have had to deal with Iran as a direct threat. The logic of them has been until this effort to try to deal with Iran, to negotiate with Iran, for example, you have many Democrats talking about the fact that there was a treaty, there was at least an agreement put in place. Agreement's the formal word here between Iran and the Obama administration concerning the limitations on the enrichment of radioactive material. Now, when President Trump was elected to his first term, he repudiated that agreement. Now, why did he do so? Well, the main reason he did so is that military advisors told him they didn't think Iran was going to be faithful to that at all. And so it didn't come with sufficient teeth to keep Iran from doing this. Now, at this point, President Trump has been in his second term applying a very different strategy, and that's a strategy that is at Least in part, if not in whole, in tandem with Israel. All right, so let's just understand where we are right now. There is no clear way to bring about the end of this conflict. This is something that had to be acknowledged in the very beginning. This kind of military action, by definition, and here's just something to think about. In a fallen world, this kind of military action is easier to start than to finish. Let's think of some reasons why. Number one, you find out in the midst of this who your friends and allies are. And that's exactly what President Trump has been stating very loudly in terms of international diplomacy. He's been expressing this rather rudely, but the point is becoming more and more clear and it becomes also more complex. I'm speaking particularly about European allies. Many of our European allies are basically wanting hands off on this. Now, they have, let's be very clear, they have an even greater stake economically in this directly than the United States, given their dependence on foreign oil. And number two, they have a tremendous interest in seeing the Islamic regime there, the theocracy in Iran, undergo regime change, something new be in its place. They have everything to gain by Iran being reduced as a threat. But you know what? Some very interesting things have just happened. Number one, it turns out that Western military intelligence might not have detected that Iran already has the capability of ballistic missiles. Okay, that's something new. The Telegraph in London. How do you like this for a headline? Britain Defenseless Against Iranian Missiles. Okay, that report was published on March 22, so just days ago. A wake up call for Britain. You think this doesn't involve you? Well, it turns out there are ballistic missiles that are now possessed by Iran that could be launched, that could reach you. Now, one of the ways we found out about this is because Iran used such weapons firing ballistic missiles against U.S. interests in the Chagos Islands. Okay, that's a long way away. Here's something very interesting in terms of defense strategy. And you can just think of it this way. Think of a map, or better yet more accurately, think of a globe. Put a pin on Iran and draw a line all the way. Or put a string all the way down to the Chagos Islands and then take that string and swing it up to the northeast. What do you get? The answer, Most of Europe. The report from the Telegraph tells us this was the first confirmed use of long range ballistic missiles by Iran. Okay, so, you know, sometimes we use terminology, we hear terminology. Ballistic missiles. That doesn't sound good. I mean, ballistic is a qualifier of missile. So if a missile is a Ballistic missile, what does it mean? Well, it means almost always that it's carrying a warhead, that is to say an explosive device. So it's a dangerous weapon. But what does ballistic usually mean? It usually means that in the context of the use of the weapon, it has a directed target and the energy source takes the missile up to an altitude where it can then descend without power to hit the intended target. So in that sense it is something like a bullet in a gun. And so it's going to have an ascent. If shot up, it is going to have a descent. But the point is that ballistic missiles are a whole new achievement in terms of armament. And we're not talking about the threat that Iran could possess them. Now we know Iran does possess them. Here's the other thing about ballistic missiles. They can be armed with nuclear warheads or they can be turned into dirty bombs. Which means you have a conventional weapon which will explode, but, but it will have radioactive material there in the warhead. So you have at least the dispersal of very deadly radioactive material as a part of the explosive. And so you don't even have to have sufficiently enriched uranium in order to create a conventional nuclear weapon. All you have to do is put radioactive material on a conventional weapon and it can just radically multiply the damage and the danger. And quite frankly, the message is settling in, at least you would think in Europe. The Telegraph tells us, quote, one senior defense source with knowledge of the UK's, that's the United Kingdom, Britain's Integrated Air Defense systems warned that Britain would struggle to fend off such a long range bombardment. And so they even talked about skill sets in responding to this, which this defense source described as sadly very, very low. All right, it also turns out that the UK doesn't have much of a defense against this kind of nuclear weapon. And the only defense it has is from the Royal Navy's fleet of six Type 45 destroyers. Okay? The problem is they can't cover more than a small part of the UK territory. Okay, this is a wake up call for everybody. Guess what, folks? We live in a more dangerous world than we knew just a matter of weeks ago. If nothing else, this just has to underline that point. We live in a far more dangerous world. It's also far more complicated. So let's just think about the complications for a moment. Let's just remind ourselves that in the asymmetrical warfare, Iran can succeed by failing. The United States and Israel cannot succeed by failing. Now what does that mean? It means that Iran, even if it fails to defeat or to press away the United States and Israel. And nonetheless, simply by surviving, can, in the long run, beyond its own rationale, win. Mere survival is a win. Let's just state the obvious. That's not true for the United States. That's not true for Israel. And it is also true that when you're looking at the fact that this asymmetrical warfare means, for example, that you can have Iran, which isn't following the same rule book, you can have Iran even firing missiles and rockets into Gulf nations, especially Arab nations there in the Gulf. And it's the United States at this point that is restraining those nations from joining the military effort. Iran, one way or the other, just intends to survive this and then to consider survival, victory, and then to rebuild on the other side when inevitably, the way they see it, the United States and Israel will have to send their defenses home. The United States is going to have to even invest billions of dollars in rearmament. More on that in just a moment. And so long range, Iran's leaders figure they've got more tenacity than the United States and Israel will have, not to mention the other Gulf states, not to mention America's allies in NATO and beyond. But you know, there's another aspect to this. When you're thinking of weakness on the part of the United States, you have to consider that part of that weakness is internal rather than external. And by that I mean politics. So the Wall Street Journal major editorial statement published on March 23rd asking the question, Is $200 billion too much to win a war? Now, here's what the Wall Street Journal editorial board is going after. You have so many leaders, especially Democrats in the United States Senate, who say that they would not support an additional spending of about $200 billion to buttress the United States in terms of military efforts, in terms of weaponry, in terms of missiles and all the rest they would not approve moving forward in this direction. The editorial board in an official statement said this, quote, the Trump administration may soon ask Congress for $200 billion for the US military, and on cue come the snipers. How's that for a very interesting use of the word quote? The number is too big or the Iran fight isn't worth it, but the war is exposing pre existing US Military vulnerabilities. And the president's job is not merely restocking arsenals, but preparing US Forces to deter the next war, end quote. Let me just point out who is noticing that the United States is facing that challenge. The answer, everyone, international media have covered this. You have Chinese media, by the way, big alarm bells there. You have others around the world who are looking at this and recognizing, you know, the United States has just put forward an amazing show of force, a show of force that only the United States is capable of demonstrating. And yet even the United States has its limits. President Trump has basically acknowledged this by lamenting the fact that our allies have at this point, not been, let's just say, very involved in helping the United States and Israel in this effort. But it's also true that the United States could come out of this with vulnerabilities that really don't center on Iran at all. And that's because if indeed we have used as much of our stockpile of weapons as is reported, and you have even congressional and Pentagon authorities acknowledging this, then there's going to have to be a massive rearmament of the United States just to get the US Back into the defense posture it had before this military effort. But you know, there are a couple of other things that have played into this as well. Number one, this asymmetric warfare reminds us that all of a sudden you have these cheap, inexpensive drones that are able to do all kinds of damage, including shutting down the Strait of Hormuz. And it turns out that you don't have to have the most advanced weaponry. And I'm thankful the United States has that weaponry. You can have much, much, much less sophisticated weaponry and still pose an ongoing threat. Now, there's good reason to believe the US has learned some lessons here. And as I mentioned on a previous edition of the briefing, we one of the interesting things is that for years now, we know in retrospect that the United States had a drone, an Iranian drone, mass produced Iranian drone that had fallen into Ukrainian hands because Russia had obtained it from Iran and used it against the Ukrainians. The Ukrainians captured it and let's just say thank you for this, gave it to the United States of America. And the US has applied US Ingenuity to mass producing those drones. But you know what? We're not at any levels that are necessary, not close yet. We're going to have to be building these for a long time. And quite frankly, all these technologies are shifting. The second big factor is this. When you're talking about global events, when you're talking about oil, when you're talking about military action, you're talking about incredible economic ramifications. And you know, one of the things that doesn't make sense to me is where you have many people, Democrats, particularly in the Senate, who say, I unwilling to pay that price, well, you know, what you're unwilling to pay for the security of the United States of America and the security of our allies and the security of international transit, and that includes international shipping and all the rest. When we talk about the Strait of Hormuz, again, about 20 miles wide at its narrowest point. And when you look at Iran's capacity to shut it down, as in they've already done it, the big issue is that they're holding the entire economy of the world hostage. And that's massive leverage. Let's just admit that right up front. That is massive leverage. And so it's going to be very interesting to see where this goes. I want to go back to that editorial statement from the Wall Street Journal about the Democrats, for example. Listen to this. Quote, American air dominance over Iran has allowed US Forces to rely on cheaper munitions. But no question the US has expended far more Tomahawk missiles than the Pentagon requested this year. That was, by the way, 57. Okay, so the Pentagon requested 57 new Tomahawk missiles this year. How many have been fired? A multiple of that in the last several days. A multiple. One military authority simply said that he is, quote, dreading finding out how many air defense interceptors the US has, has fired. All right, more about the political ramifications of this. You have a lot of Democrats who are saying, I'm just not going to do this. Democratic Senator Richard Blumenthal told cnn, quote, at this point, I would oppose that supplemental of $200 billion. Representative Ro Khanna of California said that the $200 billion requested in anticipation, it's the expected request going to Congress for rearmament, quote, could pay for free college for every American, end quote. Now, I'm not even sure if that's true or false. I can just tell you that when it comes to national security, here's a little wake up call that's irrelevant. In other words, however much it costs, well, let's just say fellow Americans, that's how much it's going to cost. The cost of not rearming, the cost of letting our defense down. Let me just say it's irrational. When you look at the fact that, that our enemies are becoming more numerous, not less. And you look at the fact that even when it comes to China, there is a good deal of strategic analysis that is concerned that China could see this moment in terms of American military being used in Iran and see it as an opportunity even to try to retake Taiwan. Look, folks, we live in a very dangerous world. And here's another interesting Worldview observation. It is not growing less dangerous, it's growing more dangerous. Here's another wake up call. It's not growing less complicated. It's growing more complicated. Here's another very interesting aspect. It's an American predicament. We have the most advanced weaponry and quite honestly, it's been on display. And that's one of the reasons why the early days of this military effort were so spectacularly successful. However, the United States is in the position where we have to play at every single level of defense and warfare. We have to play at the highest, highest level. That's the only way the United States can protect itself and peace and order around the world. We also have to play at the bottom level. So it's not just smart weapons, put it this way, it's also dumb weapons. We have to have both. We have to be good at using both. In order for that to be achieved, we have to be good at producing both. Of course, there's an awful lot in the mid level as well. It's gonna be very interesting to see what happens in coming days. I just felt like it was important for us to kind of review where we stand right now. It is a moment of vulnerability, honestly. It's also a moment of frustration. I think the American people are growing more frustrated that the White House, and the President in particular, has not said, here is exactly how we're going to end this. But let me just point out that it is unrealistic, really to expect that the President of the United States can a tell us up front exactly what he will settle for without ruining the negotiating strategy of the United States. And number two, this is a chess game in motion. Lots of pieces on the table. And quite frankly, the variability is a part of the vulnerability at this point. By the way, one last issue here. You have probably heard that President Trump has said that talks are underway with Iranian authorities. You've heard Iranian authorities say that there are no such talks. Okay, is one telling the truth and one lying? Well, that's possible. That's possible. It could also be that when you're talking about Iranian authorities, it's not clear who you're even talking about. Let's just put it this way. When you're talking about the United States, the whole world knows that Donald Trump is the President of the United States. When we ask who speaks for Iran? Well, they supposedly have a new supreme Leader in Ayatollah, but we've heard of him. Nobody's heard from him directly. He has not spoken on camera nor appeared in public. That's another part, let's just say, of the asymmetry. Okay, let's come back to the United States. Another issue that is really heavily weighted with worldview significance has to do with elections and issues related to elections, arguments about elections. Clearly, the Trump administration is making a very clear argument with the Save America act as proposed. But even without reference right now to Congress, let's just go to the Supreme Court of the United States. On Monday of this week, the Supreme Court held oral arguments in a case that originated in Mississippi about the constitutionality of systems that allow mail in ballots postmarked even on election Day. Okay, so what's the crucial issue here? The crucial issue is the fact that in the United States, the credibility of elections has to do with the fact that, that we don't have to wait an indeterminate period of time and we do not have to play with indeterminate rules to figure out how the ballots are to be rightly counted. The more this is abstracted, and the mail itself is an abstraction, the American people may decide it's a justifiable abstraction, but it is an abstraction from the act of going in the voting booth and using a machine to vote, and let's just say even more primitive systems. You know, you took out a pen and you marked a box and someone had to count it, given the size and scale of the United States. And remember that states control the election process on behalf, even of federal elections. But you look at this and there are consequences. There's some basic constitutional questions. The interesting thing that happened Monday is that, as for instance, Reuters news agency reports, it appears that a significant number of the conservative justices feel like there is a basic question of the constitutionality that would allow you to vote by mail and basically to wait until election Day to mail your ballot. And that means by definition, you've got to wait days in order to ascertain the actual election count. And so it's a very interesting question. And, you know, I'm certain that there are people who think this can be argued both ways. By the way, in Mississippi, the issue was these mailed in ballots could be counted so long as they were postmarked on or before election Day. And here's how Reuters reports it, quote, but received up to five business days after a federal election. Okay, five business days. Remind yourself that Election Day is generally Tuesday. So five days later, five business days would mean Wednesday, Thursday, Friday, and then after that, Monday and Tuesday, which means a full week. The Solicitor General of the United States said that the provision at question is unduly general and permissive. He went on to argue, official receipt is at the definitional heart of election. Election put in quotation marks as a word. In other words, election means official receipt. That's how you know which ballots to count. That's how you know how to count the ballots. You know, there's another aspect here. You have President Trump making some very clear claims about election malfeasance. You have other people claiming there was no such malfeasance. And in the United States, such malfeasance doesn't happen. Quite honestly, I think the rather common sense provisions of the Save America act were would make sense to most Americans. I think polling and surveying already demonstrates that there are people who are opposing it nonetheless. But what's really interesting is that when you look at the arguments for, say, allowing ballots to just dribble in over days, even a week, and then you take how many days it would take to count those ballots, you understand that it is subverting the idea of safe and secure elections. And you know, when you have a constitutional system that comes down to elected officials, those elections have to be credible or the entire edifice starts to fall apart. Obviously, there's plenty to think about these days at home and around the world. 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 SB for information on Boyce College, just go to boycecollege.com I'll meet you again tomorrow for the briefing.