Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Follow Us:
Top Stories

Trump is stuck between two realities. Neither serves the American people

Opinion

Trump is stuck between two realities. Neither serves the American people

image of U.S. President Donald Trump is displayed on a digital billboard in Times Square in New York on April 8, 2026.

(Timothy A. Clary/AFP via Getty Images/TNS)

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.


Read More

The dome of the United States Capitol Building in Washington, D.C., stands tall against a blue sky with the American flag waving proudly

A look at this week's congressional agenda, including House votes on Iran, Ukraine, FISA, appropriations, and key legislative priorities.

Getty Images, aire images

Legislative Preview for June 1, 2026

There will be plenty of coverage around the likely drama involved in picking up where House and Senate Republicans left off before this most recent week off. (For a recap, see our last post.) So we’re not going to go into any detail about what might happen with the reconciliation bill (originally only for two departments in the Department of Homeland Security; now enlarged with funding for the President’s ballroom project and overshadowed by the announcement of the President’s plan to pay off political allies with funds from the Department of Justice) or the FISA extension or the housing bill that’s been pingponging between chambers because you can read in sources like Politico about these marquee issue.

We will note that the Iran War resolution postponed in the House before the recess may be up for a vote this week, along with a resolution to remove US troops from Lebanon and a discharge petition (number 8) to put forward a bill authorizing support for Ukraine. Three privileged resolutions, of which one is a discharge petition (meaning it has 218 co-sponsors meaning at least a few House Republican co-sponsors), is a lot for one week. Especially when all three are expressing opposition to various administration stances and might get some House Republican votes.

Keep Reading Show less
Can Governing Survive Without Continuity?
white and black quote board
Photo by Brendan Beale on Unsplash

Can Governing Survive Without Continuity?

Modern societies depend on continuity.

Electric grids are built over decades. Infrastructure systems require long investment cycles. Defense planning depends on sustained procurement and strategic consistency. Climate adaptation, energy systems, artificial intelligence governance, public health preparedness, and fiscal stability all require institutions capable of maintaining long-term priorities across multiple administrations.

Keep Reading Show less
Can Coalitions Built on Opposition Still Govern?

Supporters of President Donald Trump, February 09, 2024 in Harrisburg, Pennsylvania.

(Photo by Spencer Platt/Getty Images)

Can Coalitions Built on Opposition Still Govern?

Political parties are supposed to do two things at once: win elections and govern. Those are not the same skill.

Winning elections requires assembling coalitions large enough to secure power. Governing requires maintaining enough internal agreement to make decisions, negotiate trade-offs, allocate resources, and sustain policy direction once power is achieved.

Keep Reading Show less
The Fragile Promise of the Ballot
black and white love print crew neck shirt
Photo by Cyrus Crossan on Unsplash

The Fragile Promise of the Ballot

Recent Supreme Court decisions such as Shelby County v. Holder and Brnovich v. Democratic National Committee were not just redefinitions of election law; they marked a critical shift away from the federal government’s duty to ensure equal ballot access—a duty fundamental to democracy.

The consequences were swift and broad. Within hours, Shelby County, Texas, imposed strict voter ID rules that federal officials had previously blocked under the Voting Rights Act’s pre-clearance provisions. Soon after, North Carolina reduced early voting and eliminated same-day registration. Across parts of Alabama, Georgia, and other Southern states, polling places closed or moved, often in communities with large Black populations. What once required federal review could now proceed quickly.

Keep Reading Show less