When Hawks Fear Their Own President: A War Scenario That Terrifies Conservatives

David Frum and Tom Nichols occupy an uncomfortable sliver of American political opinion: they believe Iran's regime deserves to fall, but they don't trust Donald Trump to be the one doing the pushing. Their two-hour dialogue on a hypothetical Iran war reveals the deep anxieties of foreign policy hawks watching their own side wield power.

The conversation, framed around a fictional war scenario, exposes a troubling question: What happens when you get the war you wanted, but not the president you'd want to fight it?

The Austin Shooting That Never Was

Their discussion opens with a chilling hypothetical: a mass shooting in Austin where the perpetrator wore an Iranian flag t-shirt. Frum immediately doubts any real connection to Tehran, but that's not his concern. "Iran is the world's leading state sponsor of terrorism," he notes, "but this administration has already falsely accused Americans of terrorism for legally filming immigration agents."

The implication is stark. If Trump can weaponize immigration enforcement against civil liberties during peacetime, what might he do with genuine war powers during an actual conflict with a nation that does sponsor terrorism?

"You're going to see attacks on freedom of the press," Frum warns. "This administration already considers it illegal for reporters to ask Pentagon employees questions about what they're doing with taxpayer money."

The Hungary Syndrome

Nichols raises perhaps the most haunting parallel: the 1956 Hungarian Revolution. American radio stations, including Voice of America, spent weeks telling Hungarians to "rise up" against Soviet rule, promising help was coming. When the Hungarians did revolt, the US stood aside as Soviet tanks crushed the rebellion. Hundreds died, thousands were imprisoned, and 250,000 fled into exile.

"Trump promised the Iranian people a month ago that help was on the way," Nichols observes grimly. "They didn't know he was a president who speaks without meaning it. They thought he was normal. They rose up. They got killed by the thousands."

Now that promissory note has been issued by the United States of America, regardless of who signed it.

Rumsfeld on Steroids

Both experts see this hypothetical war as even more reckless than the 2003 Iraq invasion. Donald Rumsfeld may have dismissed post-war planning, but at least the Bush administration went to the UN and sought congressional authorization.

Pete Hegseth, in this scenario, explicitly rejects nation-building: "There's no democracy building. There's no nation building." Nichols calls this a complete misreading of Iraq's lessons. "The mistakes weren't because we did too much planning for what comes next—it's because we did too little."

The plan, such as it exists, seems to be: kill the top 40 Iranian leaders, then "see what happens."

The Competence Question

Nichols, a former Naval War College professor, distinguishes between operational and strategic success. "The first year and a half of World War II was nothing but Japanese operational successes," he notes. "But operational successes don't translate into strategic success."

The concern isn't American military capability—"our military is operationally the most capable in the world." It's the team giving orders. "I wish [Trump] had a better team around him," Nichols says diplomatically.

Frum is blunter about motivations: "I really believe that a huge chunk of Donald Trump's foreign policy is rooted in trying to get people to stop talking about the Epstein files."

The Reconstruction Nobody Wants to Pay For

Even if everything goes perfectly militarily, the aftermath looms large. Iran today has roughly the same per-capita income as in 1980, while Portugal—which had identical growth rates from 1960-1980—became a prosperous EU member.

"We're going to have to help them," Frum argues. "We're going to have to make sure they have drinking water. That's going to cost more than the war itself."

But Trump has repeatedly told his base America won't pay for reconstruction. So who will? "China," Nichols answers immediately. "The Chinese have been masters at walking in and saying, 'American money comes with strings. Here, we'll just help you build stuff, and we won't ask questions.'"

Emergency Powers in Wartime

Perhaps most troubling is what war powers might mean domestically. Trump has already invoked false emergencies to justify tariffs (struck down by the Supreme Court). But this would be a real war with real risks of terrorist attacks on American soil.

"What court will say, 'We don't think you're telling the truth about this either?'" Frum asks. "Courts will be very reluctant to do that."

The implications extend to elections themselves. People around Trump have already urged him to use emergency powers against the 2026 midterms. "The possibility of that temptation being accepted are much higher today," Frum warns.

The Steelman Case

To be fair, both acknowledge the argument for action. Iran has been "a lethal danger to Americans since 1979—one atrocity after another, unceasing aggression, unceasing repression at home." The Obama administration "sent them money." The Biden team "allowed them to seize a warship and paid them more money to get it back."

The Iranian people have "sacrificed their lives by the thousands in a bid for freedom." How can America say no?

Nichols's answer: "Your cause can be absolutely right, but you have to put it in the drawer that says 'Can't Do For Now.'" Not with this team, not with this approach, not without allies or congressional authorization.