Which is better: A world at peace but where there is injustice in every country or a world in which justice reigns in every country but which is in constant economic, political, and military conflict? What a terrible choice! Neither world has ever existed or ever will, but it is instructive to think about both possible worlds to think about the challenges facing political leaders, corporate and nonprofit leaders, political organizations, religious leaders, and citizens themselves.
The world must clearly avoid another World War, a topic receiving increasing attention in the last year or so and especially in recent months. World War III could be a nuclear disaster, although it is not a given that World War III would be a nuclear war. Still, any World War III, whether it develops out of the war between Ukraine and the West and Russia and North Korea, Israel, Hamas, Iran and the Middle East, or Taiwan and China, is potentially a devastating war that could take tens of millions of lives.
Yet even if World War III is avoided, achieving justice in individual countries is a massive, endless journey and, for many, as frightening as war itself. Indeed, while millions pursue justice, the journey remains elusive: there is no concept of justice that all countries share in practice, although some liberal internationalists, some socialists, and some right-wing authoritarians will tell you that there is such a concept in theory.
Even taking a broadly liberal democratic concept of justice -- one that promotes basic civil and political rights and some baseline of economic goods that prevents the worst forms of poverty -- it is still hard to see how it will ever be achieved in all or even most of the countries of the world.
One reason the world is always in conflict on economic and political matters is because different countries have different concepts of justice. Add to this the basic fact that countries speak different languages, and it becomes clear why international relations and diplomacy are so challenging for all countries.
In the months ahead, as the Trump administration begins its second administration, it will be important to keep the twin goals of justice and peace in front of the administration and Congress. As the United States negotiates with other countries on economic matters, we need to work toward advancing our concept of democratic values, recognizing that other countries, even other democracies, do not share our precise concept of democratic values.
There is nothing wrong with promoting our cherished values, but we must not presume that every country lives with the same concepts. This applies especially to Russia and China. In our quest for peace, we must work more collaboratively with our allies since our enemies are forming powerful bonds that will require new alliances to combat them. The China-Russia-Iran-North Korea Axis is extremely powerful, and America alone cannot take them on. We must hold together our bonds with Europe, South Korea, Japan, Israel and Australia.
And while we pursue justice and peace for the world, we must not lose sight of the fact that the battle over justice within our country is broadly similar to the battles over economic and political affairs we have with other nations. American Democrats and American Republicans, and even factions within both parties and with independents and Third Parties, do not share the same concept of justice -- or liberty or equality. Expecting a broad consensus on the world stage is even less likely.
The Freedom Caucus of the Republican Party has different ideals, values, and missions from Center-Left Democrats as well as mainstream Republicans in the same way that the United States overall has battled with the Axis Powers as well as France, Germany, and other NATO countries in West Europe. The reality is that rival factions within countries, as well as conflicts between countries, are similar in that they both talk past each other, often talking without listening to each other.
Despite the endless quests for peace and justice, whether within or between countries, citizens and leaders alike in the United States and other democracies need the kind of hope proclaimed over 50 years ago by Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.: “The arc of the moral universe is long, but it bends towards justice."
Anderson edited "Leveraging: A Political, Economic and Societal Framework," has taught at five universities and ran for the Democratic nomination for a Maryland congressional seat in 2016.




















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.