There's nothing like an emergency to justify ignoring regulations.

For example, in the event of a mechanical failure where they couldn't reach an airport,

though, a pilot might be allowed to attempt an

emergency landing on a freeway. Seems like common sense, right? But what if the person who seeks

to ditch the rules is the person who caused the emergency in the first place? What if a president

looking to suspend certain limits on executive power because of a war started that war?

From KERA in Dallas, this is Think.

I'm Chris Boyd.

The Trump administration has given numerous explanations for why the U.S. joined Israel's

attacks on Iran, to preempt Iranian strikes on American targets, to shut down Iranian

nuclear weapons development, to defend

Iranian civilians against a regime that in recent weeks has killed thousands of its own people.

My guest has some concerns, though, about what he sees as the autocratic tendencies of President

Trump combined with the historic tendencies of the Supreme Court and Congress to acquiesce

to the will of the executive branch in times of war. David Frum is host of the Supreme Court and Congress to acquiesce to the will of the executive

branch in times of war. David Frum is host of the video podcast, The David From Show, and a staff

writer at The Atlantic, which published his essay, The Paradox of Trump's Iran Attack. David,

welcome back to think. Thank you so much. Regardless of differing opinions on whether the U.S. should be at war with Iran,

there is broad consensus that the regime of the former Ayatollah Ali Hamine was bad news.

Will you just start by reminding us what made him a danger to his own people, to his region,

and to the broader world?

The Iranian regime, the clerical,ocratic regime came to power in a revolution

...