Molineaux is co-publisher of The Fulcrum and President/CEO of the Bridge Alliance Education Fund.
As a journalistic endeavor, we focus a lot on what's wrong with Congress and the dysfunction that stalls nearly all high-profile legislation from being debated. But we haven't explored the possibilities lost to partisan fighting. How many opportunities do we miss to improve our collective governance?
If Senate Republicans prevail, the so-called Jan. 6 commission will be a major missed opportunity. And the subsequent investigations will lack the gravitas of the bipartisan investigation citizens deserve. Commissions following Watergate and 9/11 put aside political gamesmanship and focused on uncovering the truth. The act of seeking facts together is essential.
All of Congress should be demanding the facts. Especially since each of our elected officials and their staff may have testimony to provide.
The alternative is investigating through congressional committees, where witnesses and committee members are the same people. It would be messier and less believable. Especially with members of Congress already campaigning for their 2022 elections. We have only to remember the many partisan investigations of Benghazi or Donald Trump followed by their weaponization for campaign ads.
Commissions are the best way for us to analyze what happened, what mistakes were made and how we can improve to prevent the same mistakes from happening again. A bipartisan Jan. 6 commission would provide the American people with the facts and reassure us that our government can correct itself in service to the people.
A commission is not a request for more partisanship. We demand an honest accounting of what happened, who was involved and what we missed that could have prevented it from happening. It's an opportunity to build trust, instead of further eroding it.
Such knowledge is critical if we are to advance our society further. It is our duty to create a safe working environment for public officials, their staff and our security forces. If we fail to create a safe working environment for public servants, then hope for democracy is decreased as public service becomes a life-or-death risk few will take.
Lack of a commission at this moment will further diminish our confidence in elected officials and their ability to put aside personal interests for the greater good. Collective good is the essence of public service. Courage is required.
Let's not waste this opportunity. Our nation is counting on our elected leaders.
image of U.S. President Donald Trump is displayed on a digital billboard in Times Square in New York on April 8, 2026.
Trump is stuck between two realities. Neither serves the American people
Normally, I worry that events may overtake a column. But not so with the Iran war.
I don’t worry about running afoul of a headline or Truth Social post from the president because what is said about the situation is no longer very relevant to the reality.
On April 8, Nick Catoggio, my Dispatch colleague, dubbed an earlier stoppage with Iran “Schrödinger’s ceasefire.” This was a reference to the famous thought experiment by the physicist Erwin Schrödinger, who was trying to explain the weirdness of “superpositionality” in quantum physics. A cat in a box is both dead and alive at the same time until you open the box. Schrödinger meant to illustrate the absurdity of the idea that particles aren’t any one thing, but a “cloud of probabilities.”
The Trump administration is stuck in a word cloud of probabilities of his own making. The war is over. The war is on. The war isn’t a war. We have a deal, but we don’t have a deal, but we’re about to have a deal. We destroyed Iran’s military. No, we left it intact. We want regime change. No we don’t. We already accomplished it. We “obliterated” Iran’s nuclear program a year ago. We had to go to war in February to prevent nuclear war. The Strait of Hormuz is open, closed, or something in-between. No deal without “unconditional surrender.” Let’s make a deal!
This everything-all-at-once vibe can be disorienting, particularly since most Americans didn’t have a war with Iran on their bingo cards until the shooting had already started. President Trump didn’t prepare the country or consult with Congress beforehand because he thought it would all be a smashing success in a matter of weeks.
The miscalculation that started it all: killing Iran’s Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, and much of Iran’s senior leadership, on the first day of the war. To “the great proud people of Iran, I say tonight that the hour of your freedom is at hand,” Trump announced on Feb. 28. “When we are finished, take over your government. It will be yours to take. This will be probably your only chance for generations.”
I support regime change in Iran and shed no tears for Khamenei or his goons. But when you start a war by killing the regime’s top leaders, it’s not unreasonable for the remaining ones to conclude that you really intend regime change.
Khamenei was a murderous fanatic, but he was a fairly cautious one. He liked to threaten closing the Strait of Hormuz or attacking our regional allies, but he was reluctant to actually do it, fearing it would invite a regime change war. The mullahs and IRGC goons believed, not unreasonably, that if they lost their grip on power, they’d be lynched by the Iranian people they’ve brutalized for decades.
By starting with a regime change war, Trump removed any reason for the regime not to go for broke. When you have nothing to lose — particularly when you are a millenarian religious fanatic — a Persian Alamo strategy makes a lot of sense.
So Iran closed the Strait of Hormuz and attacked its neighbors.
But it turns out this wasn’t the Alamo. In the contest of wills, Trump blinked. The Iranian regime’s tolerance for punishment proved — so far — to be greater than Trump’s and that of our gulf allies. Militarily we could finish the job, but that would require ground troops and much greater economic turmoil. In a conflict Trump launched unilaterally without the prior support of Congress, NATO or the American people, Trump doesn’t have the political capital for that.
But that’s only half the problem. Trump wants the war over, but he doesn’t want to pay — militarily, economically, politically — what that would cost. So he wants to make a deal that ends it. But there is no deal available that wouldn’t come at an equally undesirable cost. Any deal that looks like what President Obama struck with the Iranians would be too embarrassing to bear. But the Iranians are convinced that they can get just such a deal, and they’re willing to drag things out as long as it takes.
The result: Trump’s in a box of his own making. He thinks he can talk his way out by simply asserting a reality that doesn’t exist. When the financial markets get nervous, he announces a breakthrough that is, at best, a possibility. When the Iranians agree to a deal that looks similar to one Obama might negotiate, Trump goes back to his threats.
It can’t go on forever. But I’m sure it’ll last until long after this column is forgotten.
Jonah Goldberg is editor-in-chief of The Dispatch and the host of The Remnant podcast. His Twitter handle is @JonahDispatch.