Wednesday, March 4, 2026

It's Wednesday, March 4, 2026.

I'm Albert Moller, and this is The Briefing, a daily analysis of news and events from

a Christian worldview.

Events continue to unfold in Iran and surrounding Iran, and in particular, the military conflict

referred to as a war by President Donald Trump that now involves the United States, Israel,

not only Iran on the other side, but allied powers on both sides.

On the side of Iran, you now have Hezbollah in Lebanon and elsewhere.

Also now posing a threat, Israel is going to be directing more of its efforts against

Hezbollah, that's an Islamic militia, very much tied historically to Iran.

On the American side, you have not only, of course, Israel acting as an ally, very close

ally in this situation, but you also have a very interesting diplomatic picture that is

unfolding.

And that turns out to be an issue with a lot of worldview significance.

There are many people who believe that the proper approach to world conflict is to try

to diffuse, or at least to take a lot of the energy out of those conflicts by means of

international diplomacy.

There are those who are faulting President Trump for not allowing diplomacy to do its work.

British Prime Minister Kier Starmer made very clear that he was opposed to the United

States' effort and basically said that it should have been handled in a way that amounted

to diplomacy.

You have similar statements coming from others, most importantly, perhaps, at least most

interestingly, from the leadership of the United Nations, saying that this is a failure

of the United States to go through the UN process.

By the way, is it that?

No, it's an intentional decision by the United States to go around that process, more

on that in just a moment.

Let's talk about the diplomatic process.

Now going all the way back into ancient history, you have something like the rule of an ambassador.

This would be an official representative of one nation represented before the government

of another.

Going back to ancient civilizations, including Egypt, Greece, Assyria, you could just go

down the whole list of the Persian Empire.

Add to that the various empires of the Pacific Rim.

The point is something like diplomacy is taking place, even going back to those ancient

times.

The word itself is basically rooted in contemporary French usage.

And by the way, France became so much the paradigm for so much of diplomatic culture that

in some realms you still have French phrases used, including words like detente, entente,

for various efforts at achieving peace.

But nonetheless, even though the verbiage in this case is characteristically French,

the reality is that the tradition is very, very old.

You had one king send an ambassador to another king, one government to another government.

And there arose also around the idea of a diplomat, usually with the rank of something

like an ambassador.

Around that also was created an entire culture, an entire culture of etiquette and formality.

So for example, a foreign ambassador to the United States presents his or her credentials

to the president of the United States and is recognized by the U.S. State Department

as, say, the Belgian ambassador to the United States.

An exchange of ambassadors, well, that represents a very healthy situation between countries.

When you have, for instance, an ambassador recalled or you have an embassy or for that

matter of consulate closed, well, that's a sign that there is big trouble.

Now the United States and Iran have not had formal relations going all the way back to 1979.

That's not to say that the United States and Iran have had no diplomatic contact.

But that diplomatic contact, usually on both sides, was through independent parties.

And so you would have another nation that had relations with Iran and still has relations

with the United States, act as an intermediary.

The United States would do the same thing, going the other direction.

In recent times, a nation like Qatar might function as an independent third party recognized

by representatives of Iran and of the United States.

And they would meet together in at least attempt to achieve some kind of understanding.

The breakdown of that process, the absolute breakdown of that process really led to the

United States and Israel taking action that terminated the Supreme Leader there in Iran

and also has led to an ongoing military conflict.

Now let's speak about that conflict for a moment.

The conflict is expanding.

As of yesterday between 12 and 13 US military bases in the region have been hit by drones

or missiles sent by Iran.

You also have Iran continuing to attack other nations there in the Gulf area, including

many of the Arab states.

That raises a huge question.

And in military context, this question is command and control.

Who is in command?

Who is in control of the Iranian forces?

And the answer is, well, maybe it is the late Supreme Leader, the late Ayatollah hominee.

And you say, well, how could that be so?

Well, it is because there are widespread reports that the Iranian military is now operating

on orders in the event of the death of the Supreme Leader.

So the Supreme Leader may very well have sent these basic military orders, perhaps even

with specificity in the event he were to be hit by an American or Israeli effort.

That's exactly what happened.

No one is sure right now who is in living control of the Iranian armed forces.

But that takes us back to the issue of diplomacy because we really don't know right now what

kind of government is going to come out of this.

We do have to look back at the recent history and understand that you have criticism directed

at the president of the United States and the prime minister of Israel.

The criticism is that the Americans and the Israelis didn't work through diplomatic channels.

And as I said, it wasn't just that they didn't work through them.

It is that they rejected them.

So let's just understand this.

You have officials at the United Nations saying that the action undertaken by Israel and

the United States was illegitimate because it was not authorized through you in action.

And of course, it wasn't.

But the point of the Americans and the Israelis is that if anyone is waiting for the United

Nations to do anything in almost every case, by the time the United Nations takes any

action at all, it is either symbolic or historically speaking far too late.

The reality is that the Iranian challenge, the Iranian crisis has been going on for years.

And Iran is still a member state of the United Nations.

Now if you have a nation like Iran, the biggest state sponsor of terrorism all over the

world.

And they are allowed to be an ongoing part of the United Nations, then you clearly have

a problem.

Furthermore, any particular action of consequence would have to be undertaken with the authorization

of the United Nations Security Council.

So you're looking at the elite of that group.

And the United States and Russia and China hold permanent seats among others on the Security

Council.

And the reality is that with Russia and China in the room, there is no way that the

UN Security Council ever would have taken action authorizing the United States and Israel

to undertake this military action.

And so you just look at this and recognize that what you see here is indeed the breakdown

of an entire system.

But it is for the most part the breakdown of a system of pretense rather than action.

Well, okay, but let's come back to the United States.

What about the criticism in the United States that President Trump has acted and is acting

unconstitutionally in this matter?

Well, here you have to look at some very interesting voices, David French, writing at the New

York Times, goes right at the President with a piece that is entitled, War and Peace

cannot be left to one man.

The key section of his argument comes down to this quote, here's the bottom line, Trump

should have gotten congressional approval for striking Iran, or he should not have struck.

And because he did not obtain congressional approval, he's diminishing America's chances

for ultimate success and increasing the chances that we make the same mistakes we and other

powerful nations have made before end quote.

Now that's an interesting argument and I think it's a significant argument.

That's why we're discussing it at this point.

David French goes on to make a constitutional argument, he writes quote, the fundamental

goal of the 1787 Constitution was to establish a Republican form of government and that

meant disentangling the traditional powers of the monarch and placing them in different

branches of government.

He continues, I quote, when it came to military affairs, the Constitution separated the

power to declare war from the power to command the military.

The short way of describing the structure is that America could go to war only at Congress's

direction, but when it does, its armies are commanded by the President.

End quote.

Well, I think there's a very real sense in which David French is right, certainly about

the 1787 Constitution, which is to say our Constitution.

The problem is that looking at American history, presidents have often felt the need to act

commanding the United States military to go into action in one place or another for one

reason or another, citing urgency and the need for the military to take action.

Now you could also look at the fact that throughout American history, there have been various

moments in which, quite honestly, the relationship between the President and Congress on these

matters was somewhat informal and somewhat now unclear.

The big game changer was the 20th century.

The 20th century brought new military realities that, quite honestly, don't exactly fit a 1787

world.

Now, the Constitution is still very much in force, but what has happened over time is that

the President with the Constitutional Authority, his commander in chief, has acted more often

by undertaking military action without prior congressional approval.

So is that constitutional or is it not?

Well, to put it in terms of America's history, it certainly has happened within our constitutional

system.

The President is the commander in chief, and to state the obvious, there are situations

and have been certainly in the age of modern warfare in which it is impossible for the

President to seek any kind of prior authorization for direct military action.

And sometimes that military action is not just a strike, but it has to do with ongoing

military efforts.

Clearly, at some point, Congress has to get involved.

Congress is going to have to authorize in two different ways.

One would be a formal authorization in which Congress passes such a resolution the second

way would be through Congress's power, the purse.

Congress can, over time, if it chooses, simply cut off money in terms of military expenditures

for any kind of action that may be undertaken by the commander in chief.

So at least in practical terms, the way our constitutional order has worked for a matter

of decades is that presidents, when they believe that a matter of urgency confronts the United

States, presidents will take military action directly.

They will, in their role as commander in chief, a president will simply order the United

States military to take this action or another action or yet another action.

There's a series of actions.

And the president would simply say he did not have time to consult Congress.

And this is not a formal declaration of war.

Now here's where things get really interesting with President Trump's actions and language

in recent days.

And that's because he has used the word war.

Now he probably didn't mean to do so in a specifically legal sense.

Nonetheless, he did use the word war.

Furthermore, he has also said that he undertook the action.

He ordered the military into action in this case because there was basically an urgency.

In historic terms, that's referred to as an imminent threat.

The United States faced an imminent threat.

The president went into action ordering the military to address that threat.

All right.

So was the president's action constitutional or not?

I think in a clear historic frame, the action was and is constitutional.

Congress alone has the authority to declare a war.

And there's been no formal declaration of war at this point.

However, there are open hostilities clearly between the United States and Iran.

And those hostilities are not wrongly referred to as a war.

Usually a war turns out to be a protracted military effort.

In this case, we hope it's not so protracted, but President Trump has said it could last

a matter of four to six weeks or even yesterday, he said, perhaps even longer.

But if it's constitutional, is it legal?

Well, that's another question.

But that question also invokes a constitutional question.

And here's where things in worldview terms get really, really interesting.

The separation of powers that is built right into the US Constitution.

It is formally, well, it is the most visible part of the constitutional structure

that separation of powers between the judicial and the legislative and the executive.

That's based in a Christian understanding of sin.

And so what you want to do is distribute authority and distribute responsibility

in separate branches of government so that human depravity being what it is,

you can't have a concentration of power in one branch, say, a monarch.

You have simply a monarchial form of government,

but rather you distribute the authority simply because

other reality of sin and of the temptation to tyranny.

And so the Christian worldview has a great deal to do with the separation of powers

in the US Constitution.

And you can look at the original understanding.

The president is Commander-in-Chief, Congress with the sole authority to declare war.

And yet you understand that in the modern age, this really has become complicated.

One of the complications is the War Powers Act of 1973.

That legislation came about when Congress was quite frustrated by a succession of US president.

It's most importantly, President Lyndon Baines Johnson,

but also then President of the United States, Richard Nixon.

Congress was very frustrated about the experience in Vietnam and wanted to prevent,

or at least they thought they were going to prevent,

a similar kind of action undertaken by a president as Commander-in-Chief.

But here's the interesting thing.

The War Powers Act requires a president to notify Congress

within 48 hours after deploying US troops or the US military.

Well, clearly, that has been invoked by now.

You also have a limit placed on the president of 30 days of military activity

before Congress would have to act.

There is a 30-day extension that is possible.

Now, given complications one way or the other,

the exact number of days may be open to debate.

The point is it is a limited period of time,

sometimes referred to now as about five months of time at the maximum.

But here's the interesting thing.

It was a bipartisan Congress largely dominated by Democrats

that pressed through the War Powers Act in 1973.

Then President Richard Nixon declared that he believed the legislation to be unconstitutional.

Now, here's what's really interesting.

Every single president of the United States beginning with Richard Nixon

has referred to the War Powers Act in 1973 as unconstitutional.

So there's a bipartisan consensus by presidents,

at least when they are president,

that the War Powers Act binds the president in a way that is unconstitutional.

There seems to be very good reason to believe that the law may be unconstitutional,

but that would have to be tested, of course.

It would have to be tested, presumably,

all the way up to the Supreme Court of the United States.

The point is that hasn't happened,

and it's not going to happen really quickly,

although it is interesting that what we can see now is the context

in which there could be a challenge to the War Powers Act

that might, in light even of the actions right now taking place in Iran,

eventually go before the Supreme Court.

But the point is we are now living in a time

in which some of this appears to be almost abstract.

So to give an example, you have those who would say,

well, President George W. Bush did the right thing

looking for congressional authorization before the invasion of Iraq.

The first President Bush, the father of President George W. Bush,

George H. W. Bush also sought that kind of authorization.

He also sought a combined action undertaken

with the authority also of the United Nations.

But the point is that in both of those cases,

the publicity about the effort to achieve that kind of consensus

and get that kind of authorization was intended

to have the effect of causing, for instance,

in the case of Iraq, Saddam Hussein, to back down.

But that isn't at all what happened.

The situation, and I think this is what you're hearing

from the Trump administration right now.

The situation right now is that with the imminent threat

of the development of all kinds of aggressive actions by Iran,

and on the basis of the fact that Iran had already taken so many

of those actions, when the opportunity came,

and this largely came as we know as a result

of work by Israeli intelligence,

when the opportunity came to strike,

there was no opportunity for negotiations.

There was no opportunity for some kind of public confrontation

that might lead to Iran backing down.

It was a situation that required immediate action.

The other major factor in the President's favor in this

in terms of argument is that the amassing

of so much military power, they're obviously in readiness

for an attack upon Iran.

It had taken place not only over days,

but weeks and months, and Iran didn't get the message.

And of course, I think a sane analysis will lead

to the conclusion that Iran wasn't going to get the message.

By the way, the issues we just been discussed,

some of these issues came up in comments made

by Secretary of State Marco Rubio, when he insisted,

just in the last 48 hours, that the administration is acting

in accordance with the War Powers Act of 1973.

And at this point, I think unquestionably it is.

The President, then the White House authorities,

notified congressional leaders, but there's even more to this

and that's the political reality that Congress

has been somewhat marginalized in terms of this matter.

It isn't clear that Congress doesn't want to be marginalized.

Okay, so what are we saying?

We're saying that the President of the United States,

incumbent President Donald J. Trump,

decided to take this action.

And the action was taken in his authority

as Commander-in-Chief.

It isn't at all clear that congressional leaders,

and I'll say this on a bipartisan manner,

but certainly the Democratic leaders,

that they want to have any responsibility

for undertaking this kind of military action

in the first place.

So in one sense, politically, they are in what they see

as a very advantageous position.

They didn't have to take action themselves.

They didn't have to go on the record making such a decision

and they get to criticize the President

of the opposing party for truly taking action.

It's going to be very interesting

as we watch the political debate unfolding.

I wanted to go to the argument

that the President is acting unconstitutionally.

I don't think there is merit in that accusation.

But you know what, it's up to Congress.

If they believe, if a majority in Congress believes

that the President has acted unconstitutionally,

they have powers and mechanisms to respond to that judgment.

It isn't at all clear that they want to put themselves

on the line to make that judgment.

Long-term, is it good that Congress

has been so marginalized in these questions?

I think a good conservative, Christian-based argument

can argue that the Congress has signlined itself

in ways that are not healthy.

We do not know how this is going to end.

We do not have absolute assurance

that there will be a better situation

on the other side of this military action.

On the other hand, it's hard to believe

how this military action could make the picture worse.

There is good reason to believe

it could make the reality far better.

But President Trump has taken authority

as the commander-in-chief for this action.

And historically, that also means he will own it.

It is also being routinely argued

that every time America is acted in a similar way,

there have been complications unforeseen

and sometimes those complications endure

long into the future.

There can be no doubt that some of those observations

are based in truth.

The problem is, no one talks about the observation

of what would have happened

if the action hadn't been taken.

Acting and not acting sometimes come with parallel risks.

And at least some military historians will say

that the greater risk seen over time

is not in acting, but in failing to act.

One final issue related to the war

and to the ongoing consideration of America's challenge

when it comes to gambling and the prediction markets.

Well, it turns out that all this crashed together

in the opening hours of the military action against Iran.

And there are reasons to wonder

if some kind of insider information wasn't in play.

The Wall Street Journal runs a headline,

Hamanai Wajers draws scrutiny.

Here's how it begins, quote,

before US and Israeli missiles struck Tehran,

users of call sheet and polymarket play short-term wajers

that Iran's supreme leader, the Ayatollah Ali Hamanai,

would be out of power.

The journal goes on to say, quote,

now those bets are under scrutiny

after the killing of Hamanai.

Some US lawmakers have raised questions about whether

the market should be allowed.

And if some anonymous trader said inside information

head of the strikes, meanwhile,

some users complained about how their bets were resolved,

a democratic senator, in this case,

US Senator Chris Murphy of Connecticut

said an opposed on Twitter or X quote,

I'm introducing legislation ASAP to ban this.

Well, you know, there are huge moral questions here.

We're talking about the death of a human being

and we're talking about something that was unfolding

in terms of current military action.

You also seem to have had some people

who have had, let's just say, an eerily accurate sense

of what was about to happen.

In this case, we're also talking about

the new developments related to prediction markets

that some claim are not gambling,

but actually function more or less exactly

like gambling enterprises.

You know, I think Christians will look at this

and recognize we really are looking at a huge problem.

When you're talking about current events,

including current events that could involve the military,

when you have Americans betting on actions

that could involve the American military

and information that could put our own troops

as well as the lives of others at risk,

when you're looking at market speculation

in terms of a gambling scheme,

as to whether or not or how quickly

or under what circumstance as a political leader might die,

I think we all see there are huge issues

of moral concern here.

By the way, these platforms did not allow direct bets

based upon exactly when Iran's supreme leader might expire.

Instead, they euphemistically referred

to when his political influence would be at an end.

Oh yeah, we all understand that distinction.

On a note at its site,

Polly Market stated, quote,

the promise of prediction markets is to harness

the wisdom of the crowd to create accurate,

unbiased forecasts for the most important events

in society, end quote.

The journal then went on to quote the CEO of Kalshi,

saying that he, quote,

compared the Hamanai market to oil futures,

which he said could also serve as a proxy during wartime.

He said, and I quote,

we believe that's different than having a market

directly on someone's death, end quote.

And he said it also in a post on X.

The risks involved in this endeavor

may clear by the Wall Street Journal

listen to this paragraph, quote,

war markets have been a particularly sensitive topic

for prediction markets given that information about strikes

against foreign adversaries could rely

on highly classified information

and those bets could put lives in danger, end quote.

You combine these prediction markets

and ongoing military action,

and you simply have to ask the obvious question,

what could go wrong?

And the answer, I think you'd have to give in responses

just about everything connected to this entire endeavor.

But this is where we are.

And it's going to be interesting to see not only

if Congress decides to take some kind of action

consistent with the War Powers Act.

It's also going to be very interesting to see

if Congress takes any action related

to the prediction markets turned into a war market.

It's going to be an issue,

whether Congress takes it up or not.

It ought to be a part of a public conversation.

And frankly, it's going to be an issue.

One way or the other, you can bet on it.

Thanks for listening to the briefing.

For more information, go to my website at AlbertMohor.com.

You could follow me on X or Twitter

by going to x.com, forward slash AlbertMohor

for information on the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary,

go to spts.edu.

For information on Boyce College,

just go to BoyceCollege.com.

I'm speaking to you from Pasadena, California.

And I'll meet you again tomorrow for the briefing.

I'll meet you again tomorrow for the briefing.