The Briefing with Albert Mohler - Monday, April 13, 2026

Episode Date: April 13, 2026

This is The Briefing, a daily analysis of news and events from a Christian worldview.On today’s edition of The Briefing, Dr. Mohler discusses Iran’s chokehold on the international economy, pirates and the history of the U.S. Navy, the Iranian conflict’s impact on U.S. wallets, and the reverence shown in the Artemis II mission.Part I (00:13 – 10:33)Iran’s Chokehold on the International Economy: Iran’s Control of the Strait of Hormuz is a Net DisasterThe War Is Turning Iran Into a Major World Power by The New York Times (Robert A. Pape)A Prospectus for the ‘Tehran Toll Booth’ IPO by The Wall Street Journal (James Mackintosh)Part II (10:33 – 18:23)Pirates and the History of the U.S. Navy: Freedom of Navigation and the Genesis of the U.S. NavyPart III (18:23 – 20:35)The Iranian Conflict is Coming For Your Wallet: The Economic Chokehold Iran Has Over Global Shipping is Going to Force an Economic Crisis on the WorldOur Vacations. Our Food. Our Mortgages. The Iran War Will Change Our Lives. by The New York Times (Bill Saporito and David Stubbs)Part IV (20:35 – 27:13)Artemis and Reverence: The Secular World Struggles to Rightly Capture the Wonder of Space Exploration – Christians Know WhyAnother Giant Leap Reminds Us How Small We Are by The New York Times (Ruth Graham)Sign up to receive The Briefing in your inbox every weekday morning.Follow Dr. Mohler:X | Instagram | Facebook | YouTubeFor more information on The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, go to sbts.edu.For more information on Boyce College, just go to BoyceCollege.com.To write Dr. Mohler or submit a question for The Mailbox, go here.

It's Monday, April 13th, 2006. I'm Albert Moller, and this is the briefing, a daily analysis of news and events from a Christian worldview. Well, as we went into the weekend, of course, we all knew the big story was going to be the talks between the United States and Iran, and those talks were designed in order, number one, to make certain that the current ceasefire is real and might hold, and then secondly, hopes that there could be a negotiated more lasting peace. Some, at least, lessening of the hostilities between the United States and Iran. Israel, of course, being a related party as well. But as we now know, U.S. Vice President J.D. Vance spent hours upon hours in conversation with senior Iranian officials, and the bottom line is that they made no apparent progress.

Now, I want to put that into an historical context for just a moment. When you're talking about two belligerents in a military action like this, you're talking about an incredibly high level of hostilities, and those hostilities are not merely military hostilities. They're also social and communication hostilities. Furthermore, when you look at Iran, you have to date those or post-date those hostilities all the way back to 1979. So we're talking about generations involved here. We're talking about no one alive, basically involved in this process. And that includes the president of the United States, who though, of course, alive at the time, was not a part of any of those deliberations back in the 1970s into the 1980s.

No, the fact is that there is a lot of bad blood, a lot of bad history between Iran and the United States, not to mention again, putting Israel in the picture. And so no informed person in terms of international diplomacy in the history of world affairs could have expected that all of a sudden there was going to be a news conference in Islamabad, Pakistan, and you'd have the U.S. vice president and the senior Iranian officials coming out saying they had achieved peace at last. No. By the way, if it had happened, no one would trust it. And that's because it would be at the expense of any real understanding and agreement on the issues. Now, there's another big issue here, which is it is unclear exactly what the U.S. wants out of this. And by the United States, yes, I'm talking about President Donald J. Trump. I'm talking about his emissary there.

He sent Vice President J.D. Vance. I'm talking about the Trump administration, the State Department under the Trump administration. But I'm talking about actually a succession of American administrations, a succession. of American presidents going all the way back to Jimmy Carter in the 1970s, there have been several constants. And the most important constant of all is the recognition that Iran is a deadly threat and that it is a threat that presents itself falsely in negotiations. And so that's a constant. When you hear Trump administration people say that, they're basically saying what Jimmy Carter's people said, what Ronald Reagan's people said, what George Bush's, H.W. Bushes, you just go down the list.

That's basically the way it works. At the same time, you have what you have, which is to say that if the United States wants some better situation is going to have to achieve it through some combination of military action and statecraft negotiation, and that's going to also have to come. Let's just face it, in a fallen world with this kind of moral agent, it's going to have to come with the very real threat of renewed military hostilities, if indeed necessary. Now, in terms of the foreign relations here, one of the big concerns is whether or not not, President Trump has a long-range interest in seeing this through. And let's just take the obvious.

We have to hope that he does. I think it is clear, and he basically talks this way, President Trump sees U.S. military action as something that should be short, effective, generally from the air, not troops on the ground. It's not at all clear that's going to work in Iran. It is clear that it did work, already has worked, in terms of knocking out most of Iran's official military capability. as the president likes to say. It's Navy and its Air Force, basically, to use one of the president's favorite words, obliterated. On the other hand, given the fact that you have drones and missiles, you still have danger coming from Iran, and that danger is centered in the strait of Hormuz. And that's where I want to turn the conversation. And when it comes to the negotiations,

we should actually be glad that a bad agreement didn't come out in haste. Let's just state that very clearly. in this kind of negotiation, if the agreement comes too fast, it probably isn't real. And I just am counting on the fact, I have great confidence in the fact that Vice President J.D. Vance was a very aggressive agent in terms of presenting the American case. And by the way, there is no telling exactly what he said in that room. That's the way state craft works. All right. But we are talking about a situation in which Iran has.

more, so to speak, cards to play than we would expect at this point. And that is because Iran moved ahead to shut down the Strait of Hormuz. Now, Iran is saying that it is going to maintain control of the strait. It's going to shut it down to any enemy traffic, and that includes the United States, especially Israel, even more than the United States, and allies to the United States and Israel. And it is going to charge for safe transit through the Strait of Hormuz. And through the Strait of Hormuz, about one-fifth, about 20% of all the usable petroleum, and by that meaning oil for gasoline, but also liquefied petroleum as well. We are talking about a lot of energy, and this is a world that runs on energy, a lot of it going through a choke point there at the Strait of

Hormuz, now under the control of Iran, or at least under the threat of Iranian military action, which is enough to shut down most shipping, because shipowners cannot afford to send their cargo, their ships, and their crews into a situation in which they could face being blown out of the water. That's just not going to happen. So effectively, this is a chokehold on the international economy. So long as the United States and Israel do not prevent Iran from keeping control with the Strait of Hormuz, it is a disaster. It is a net disaster. And that's where we need to understand that it's a huge problem. The New York Times editorial page, an article by Robert A. Pate, at the University of Chicago, the title is, the war is turning Iran into a major power.

I'm not certain that's true yet, but let me just say it is threatening to turn Iran into a major power, because if Iran is going to maintain control, basically piracy control of the Strait of Hormuz, then you are facing economic disaster all over the world, and that includes the United States. I don't think most Americans recognize that yet. If you're talking about 20% of much of the most important strategic transit in the world, now being under the control one way or the other of Iran, one of the most hostile forces we can imagine. Well, let's just state the obvious. We're going to have a very different economy, and that's not good news. A tongue-in-cheek approach came from James McIntosh, writing in the streetwise column at the Wall Street Journal.

He referred to the threat of Iran as the Tehran Toll booth. Now remember, this is a sarcastic piece written as if by Iranian authorities in a business plan. quote, our straight is used by between 30,000 and 36,000 large ships annually, including tankers, bulk carriers, and container and general cargo carriers. Our total addressable market is smaller as transport of Iranian cargo will generate no revenue, but initial estimate suggests we will generate up to $72 billion a year of revenue, end quote. And by the way, some of the intricacies of piracy are also made clear in this so-called business plan. but this is exactly how Iran's now looking at its strategic interest when it comes to the

strait. And now you have America's closest allies there in the region who are openly worried because if they can't get their shipping through the strait, their own economies are going in the tank. You have much of Europe sharing that worry. You also have China sharing that concern. The great victor in all of this right now other than Iran is Russia. Because given Russian oil and all the rest, the fact, Russia is also an ally to Iran.

And this is basically very good news for Vladimir Putin. He's going to get some cold, hard cash that he can spend in the war against Ukraine. Again, that's how these concentric circles work. A little ripple here becomes a big wave there. All right. But next, I want to put this into an historical context because I can't believe you're not hearing more about this. It is because all my historical interest is just absolutely awakened in this because I want you to know, when you look at the piracy situation right now in this trade of hormones, you look at. at a foreign power trying to control shipping and seize shipping? Well, just understand this is exactly

the story that brought the United States Navy into existence. This is exactly the story that brought the United States Marines into existence. We're talking about the shores of Tripoli. Okay, the background to this is the fact that freedom of navigation, freedom of shipping is one of the most basic issues in international law. So, for example, I have before me right now the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea. Now, in terms of its last edition, we're about 1982. So this is the international law, insofar as international law prevails, this is the international law about freedom of navigation, particularly on the high seas. Listen to this, quote, the high seas are open to all states. That means governments, whether coastal or landlocked,

Freedom of the high seas is exercised under the conditions set down by this convention and by other rules of international law. It comprises both for coastal and landlocked states, freedom, especially freedom of navigation. And listen to this, quote, every state, whether coastal or landlocked, has the right to sail ships flying its flag on the high seas, end quote. That's absolutely fascinating. In other words, you can have a completely landlocked nation that according to the law of the seas can have its own flagged vessels. I'm not sure how it's going to get those vessels in the water and how it's going to get the cargo out of them. That obviously is going to require other friendly international agreements. But it is very interesting.

You can have a completely landlocked nation that can show up, yeah, with a Navy. But the reason I want to bring this up is that if you go back to America's colonial period, go back to the period right after we won the Revolutionary War, we won our independence from Britain. What could go wrong? Well, in terms of the international picture, a lot could go wrong. For example, you had Great Britain paying tribute to the so-called Barbary Pirates. So the Barbary Pirates were operating particularly out of North African nations.

There were largely Arab, largely Muslim, and they were raiding ships, especially all kinds of traffic ships, going to the Mediterranean. Now, just keep in mind, a map of the Mediterranean. As you go west in the Mediterranean, towards the Atlantic Ocean, things get really, really tight. Just think of Gibraltar and just think of how narrow it is there. Just think of how close to the coast. Thinking of the North African coast here, nations such as Libya, for example, or Morocco. Just think of how close shipping would have to be. Okay, so what happened?

Well, what happened is that the British Navy sent word to the pirates that the United States of America was now an independent nation and thus not covered under the tribute that had been paid by Great Britain. which meant Britain basically sick to the pirates on the Americans. Now, I guess that was fair in one sense, because we did declare our independence, and then we won our independence, but guess what? Once we had our independence, we had our independence. And here's where things get a lot more complicated, but also, I promise you, just a lot more interesting.

This is why we have a Navy, the way we have a Navy now. This is how we have the Marines, the way we have the Marines now. That's why you hear, for instance, about Tripoli, which was the most problematic of the raiding regions when it came to the U.S. You had U.S. vessels seized. You had U.S. crews seized in the late 18th century. And then in the beginning of the 19th century. And at the beginning of the 19th century, you had to fast forward to the third president of

the United States, Thomas Jefferson, who recognizes that the United States is not going to function adequately, financially, if so much shipping in the Mediterranean is at stake. Because remember, we are now independent, which means we have to export a lot of things and we have to import a lot of things. Otherwise, we don't have them. Well, here's what the pirates are doing. And that's why you often hear the Barbary Pirates. It was considered piracy. By the way, legally, it is still defined as piracy. If you have someone who seizes or takes control of vessels and cargo or cruise or anything on the high seas, more on the freedom of navigation in just a moment. I just want the history to sit with us for just a moment. So Thomas Jefferson understands, and of course the Articles of Confederation approve they were just not adequate to prevailing upon the colonies, even to provide for mutual defense in terms of the new United States of America. That's why the constitutional crisis came, and that's why eventually we settled, and let's be thankful for this, on the 1787 Constitution. That's the Constitution, as we know it today, of course, amended several times thereafter. but in terms of continuity, yeah, it's that very constitution that is the U.S. Constitution. And then you had the President of the United States under our constitutional system as commander

and chief. Now, everybody knew what that looked like with George Washington. What would it look like with Thomas Jefferson, the third president of the United States? What would it look like once the United States was threatened with piracy? Our ships were taken. Our crews were sold into slavery. Some of them were summarily executed. They were mistreated. The United States can't let this happen. So what are we going to do about it? Well, if we're going to do anything about it, guess what we need. Not just to sometime every once in a while, Navy.

We need a genuine Navy. We need a Navy, not just to patrol the areas right around our own coasts here in North America. We need a Navy that can project American power into the Mediterranean, even in something like the year 1803. And that required a lot of money. It required a lot of coordination. it required a lot of presidential will. And so the United States Navy went sailing into the Mediterranean in order to defeat the Barbary pirates

and to assure American safe shipping in the region. The naval effort didn't go particularly well at first. The Ottoman regencies of Algiers, Tunis, and Tripoli, along with Morocco, they were all threatening in the United States. And I don't just mean idle threats. They were taking American ships. They were imprisoning American crews. This just could not stand.

There were naval efforts, but again, this is the very earliest part of the history of the United States Navy. The Marines, of course, were those who were a part of the larger naval effort, but were trained to invade on land and carry out hostilities on land. And that's one of the great stories of American military history, because U.S. Marines landed in North Africa and marched 500 miles and achieved a very strategic victory such that you had. the assurance of free navigation for American vessels. And so when we talk about the shores of Tripoli, we talk about the American victory against the Barbary pirates. It was exactly over what is known as F-O-N, freedom of navigation. So I got to tell you, as a little boy, I was fascinated with military history, fascinated with soldiers and sailors and Marines, fascinated with this kind of history, fascinated with pirates. I had no idea when I was young how much this factors into American history.

history, global international history, and the affairs unfolding right now. Just think about it. What we're looking at are old laws against piracy, now requiring that we prevent Iran from having effectively the same kind of control as the Barbary pirates were claiming and exercising and conducting basically the same kinds of offensive operations and violating the freedom of navigation. Now, of course, there are a couple of interesting questions here. I've had some people ask about this. When you think about the freedom of navigation, it's on the high seas. It's on international waters and connected waterways. It is not for internal water. So, example, freedom of navigation doesn't give the Russians the ability to sail, you know, a naval craft

into the Great Lakes. Those are internal waters. That's not covered in freedom of navigation in terms of this kind of use. The Suez Canal, no, that's internal. The Panama Canal, internal. Now, there are international laws and agreements that pertain, but when you're talking about freedom of navigation, you're talking about the seas, you're talking about the seas, the oceans, and the waterways that connect them naturally. The crucial military action, by the way, undertaken by naval and marine forces in U.S. history, 1805, April the 27th, 1805, known as the Battle of Durnah. It's an amazing story. By the way, that was the very first time that America had a military victory in a place other than North America. It's the very first time that America raised the

American flag after a military victory in a foreign land that was right there in North Africa and against piracy on the high seas and violations of the freedom of navigation. So this is a story that's very, very close to American military history. The ongoing need for a Navy, the ongoing need for Marines, eventually the ongoing need for an army, at least a standing army of some size, became very apparent, given even these early conflicts. And there were other big developments as well, but I just find all that really interesting. When you hear the mention of Tripoli and American military history, most people don't know what that's about.

Let me just tell you, when you're talking about Iran right now, you're talking about something that's hauntingly close to being a direct parallel. By the way, if this goes badly and the piracy is allowed to continue, speaking of Iran in this case in terms of the piracy, let me tell you how it's going to ricochet through the economy. It's not only about oil. It's not only about liquid petroleum. It's also about other commodities, such as fertilizer, absolutely necessary for modern agriculture, for the food that we eat. The New York Times writers here are Bill Saperito and David Stubbs. They speak about the larger concentric circles here, quote, expect to pay more even for food, too. Prices for meat, wheat, coffee, and sugar are rising because the planting, harvesting, processing, storage, and transportation of food are energy intensive. Farmers, are struggling to get their fertilizers that they've ordered from the Middle East. The price of anhydrous ammonia fertilizer, one of the most used is up more than 20% this year. Now, there are some alternatives, but they also get expensive.

And as things get more rare, they get even more expensive. As chokeholds are held and as shipping begins to slow down, we are in big trouble. Okay. Now, it also, as we say, is putting Iran in the position of now, exercising arguably more power in the region than it had before this military action started. Now, obviously, there are unintended consequences in military action. And if anything, this is probably something that would have happened eventually, but it has happened now. And so the big question is, how do we get out of this? I do think it's very interesting to see how upset President Trump is with European nations who say, we didn't start this, we don't want anything to do with it,

we're going to let you settle it. President Trump's basically saying, at least publicly, or at least taunting the Europeans and others by saying, well, you know, it's up to you now. I mean to state the obvious. It's going to be up to a far larger group of nations than you might expect to deal with this pretty soon. Or we are talking about a very significant economic crisis that's going to affect an awful lot of nations, including nations who say they don't want any part of this.

But guess what? If you are dependent upon the trade that goes through the trade of Hormuz, guess what? this is actually your battle too, whether you like it or not. All right. Now, let's come back closer to home and at the same time further away. I'm talking about what took place when the Artemis II spacecraft came back safely, bringing our astronauts back safely to the United States of America, splashing down within basically a mile of its expected landing place,

and basically pitch perfect. And pitch perfect is actually strangely accurate as a way to describe it. because the perfection of the pitch had a great deal to do with whether or not the reentry would be survivable. And you know, when you're looking at this, just think of all the calculations that are necessary. You're talking about that tiny, tiny spacecraft having to come back in and it's going to have to slow down from traveling at a speed human beings have never traveled before. It's going to have to decrease all the way from the high velocity speed that this is just beyond our imagination. going to have to slow down to something like 20 miles an hour in order to land safely in the ocean.

And of course, with the parachutes, with the reentry, with the heat shield working, it did. And it was a magnificent sight. Seeing that spacecraft come into the atmosphere, seeing it visible from on earth, seeing the first shoots go out and then the large landing shoots go out, seeing them deploy beautifully. It was an astounding thing to see. and of course there was much prayer involved on the part of the American people and I'm sure the Canadians as well with a Canadian astronaut among the four seeing them return safely and this is such a complicated operation it astounds human imagination but you know what the whole thing does and there's an inevitable worldview issue here even among people who want to deny there's a worldview issue here there's something here they have to think about they have to talk about yesterday's edition of the New York York Times at the top above the fold on the front page had a headline article, Mission to the Moon inspires a sense of reverence. Subhead in the article, chance to ponder our power and our powerlessness.

Okay, amazing. Reverence, our power and our powerlessness. Ruth Graham is the writer on the story. She's done a really good job on this, pointing out that this space mission, in terms of the very conception of it, the images of Earth and of the Moon that came back to us, the knowledge of how far away human beings have now traveled. This crew went further than any human beings have ever penetrated beyond the United States before into space, and then to return safely.

And all of this is just absolutely astounding. Going back more than 50 years ago to the first Apollo missions, when we saw that image of Earth hanging in space for the first time, often referred to as a pale blue dot, the smallness of human beings over against the immensity of space becomes immediately apparent. By the way, very interesting line in this article. It has to do with the fact that the astronauts went into outer space. But guess what? You and I are actually in outer space because we're on Earth, and Earth is a part of space. They just went beyond the Earth to another part of space. Space is everywhere. And this is the cosmos, God is

created is the theater of his glory. And so this article just mentions the fact that it's very hard to look at any of this. It's very hard to watch any of this and not think reverent thoughts. Okay, I think that's absolutely right. But I am certain I know why. It's because we are human beings, every single one of us made in God's image, and we can't look at anything this spectacular and anything that puts us in our place so significantly. And I don't just mean human beings at the individual level. I mean, even our entire planet, putting our entire planet, our entire celestial system in its place, in its vast immensity beyond, it requires, of course, the answer to the question, why are we significant at all? What is man that that aren't mindful of him? And it just reminds

us that there's really only one satisfying answer to the obvious question that arises just from even seeing the picture of planet Earth from outer space. Why? How? Who? If you don't want to get to the who. You're going to be very, very limited with the how and the why. William Shatner, remember him, Star Trek? He also, of course, went into outer space at one point on a NASA mission. And according to the New York Times, he concluded that what he saw was the vicious coldness of space contrasted with the warmth of the earth. And he said that filled him with an overwhelming sadness. Well, I tell you what, that comment fills me with an overwhelming sadness. How can you look at the miracle of life on Earth and not be thankful for it?

for it rather than sad. How can you not be astounded at the glory of God in the perfection of the orders even write down? This is called the cosmic anthropic principle. If you're looking for a good apologetic theological category, the cosmic anthropic principle is the recognition that the universe appears to be so finely tuned for the existence of human beings on planet Earth. Yeah, what a coincidence, huh? It was noted even during the mission that when the astronauts there on the mission began to speak about what they observed and what it meant to them, it came out as something a little bit short of secular. It wasn't particularly clear, but it certainly wasn't secular. It implied there's much more that needs to be said, and you and I know what that is.

And you can't look at all of this, I think, and simply come to some kind of secular awe. What in the world would that mean anyway? Secular reverence? And this just takes me back to one of the central principles of Christian theology, which is that all things like this rightly understood direct us to one thing, and that is the worship of the one true and living God, maker of heaven and earth. We've got big things to talk about tomorrow, the election and hungry, lots of other pressing issues. That's enough for today. Thanks for listening to the brief. For more information, go to my website at Albertmuller.com. You can follow me on Twitter or X by going to X.com forward slash Albert Milver for information on the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, go to

sbps.org.com. For information of what's college, just go to what's college.com. I'll meet you again tomorrow for the briefing.