Goldstone is the author of the forthcoming "Not White Enough: The Long Shameful Road to Japanese American Internment."
Nikki Haley’s announcement that she was entering the race for the 2024 Republican presidential nomination should have evoked cheers among party leaders. Here was a non-white woman just over fifty, the daughter of immigrants with a compelling, up-by-the-bootstraps life story, who had become the United States’ first female Asian American governor. Haley is articulate, personable, less extreme than many other potential candidates, and, in addition to serving as South Carolina’s chief executive, she also represented the United States in the United Nations.
Who better to help a party widely accused of racism and misogyny to improve and expand its appeal?
Haley is more than aware that running as an anomaly can turn what would have been weaknesses into strengths. “We’re ready to move past the stale ideas and faded names of the past. And we are more than ready for a new generation to lead us into the future,” she exclaimed, touting herself as the candidate who could restore greatness to a nation that was “on a path of doubt, division, and self-destruction” and “of fading patriotism and weakening power.”
“Stale ideas and faded names,” was a bold statement, since anyone vying for the Republican nomination has an additional worry beyond the standard problems of raising money, getting the message out, and persuading voters that they are the best person to embody and promote conservative values. Under normal circumstances, Haley could have expected a withering assault from Mr. Stale Ideas and Faded Names himself, Donald Trump, the same prospect that has kept other, more weak-kneed challengers on the sidelines.
But Trump’s attacks have yet to materialize. Even more surprising, he seemed to welcome her into the race. As he wrote on Truth Social, “Nikki has to follow her heart, not her honor. She should definitely run!” Although he was gibing Haley for previous statements that she would not go against him, to say that this was a mild attack by a man totally lacking any sense of decency is an understatement. Even subsequent ripostes by Trump minions, calling her “just her another career politician,” are hardly up to the standards of a man who once blamed tough debate questions on a woman’s menstrual cycle.
The fact is, Trump does want her to run. More than that, he needs her to. Trump is desperate for a wide field in the primaries and would benefit enormously from a challenger who represents no real threat and to whom he can appear, by his standards, almost chivalrous.
Polls evaluating potential Republican candidates, while unreliable at this point and subject to vast swings, nonetheless make it clear that Trump’s chances of winning the nomination are far better in a diffuse field than in a head-to-head contest with Ron DeSantis. In a recent Monmouth University poll, for example, DeSantis beats Trump 53-40 if they are the only two in the race, while in a Morning Consult poll that included a dozen potential candidates, Trump thumped DeSantis 47-31. Although each poll has its own methodology, Trump has fared worse mano a mano with DeSantis in almost all of them.
In addition, Haley may have the potential to draw more votes away from DeSantis than other potential rivals, such as the two Mikes, Pompeo and Pence, or fringe entrants like Ted Cruz or Chris Christie. In a Yahoo News/YouGov poll, while DeSantis has a 45-41 lead over Trump head-to-head, “In a hypothetical three-way match-up, Haley effectively plays the spoiler, attracting 11% of Republicans and Republican-leaners while DeSantis’s support falls by roughly the same amount (to 35%), leaving Trump with more votes than either of them at 38%.”
And so, Trump’s reaction to Haley’s announcement was muted and is likely to remain so. Party leaders, on the other hand, although they will be loath to say so publicly, were likely none too pleased with Haley’s decision.
It has become an open secret that many Republicans dread the idea of Trump gaining the 2024 nomination. With him both the titular and spiritual leader of the party, Republicans have underperformed in three consecutive national elections, losing the presidency and the Senate and barely taking back the House, despite subterranean approval ratings for President Biden.
Once considered apostasy, some, such as Mitch McConnell, ethically challenged in his own right, have publicly called for a different presidential nominee in 2024. McConnell, who would give a body part to again be majority leader, is particularly aggressive about calling for change. Republicans need to pick up one, perhaps two Senate seats in 2024 if he is to achieve that aim, and under normal circumstances, he would be a heavy favorite to do so.
Seats in Montana, Ohio, and Arizona, and perhaps West Virginia, Nevada, and Wisconsin could easily flip red if Republicans nominate reasonable candidates, even if they are hard right. But in the last two Senate cycles, Trump has forced a series of laughably poor candidates on the party, some of whom seemed barely literate. Almost all lost. With Trump at the head of the ticket, that debacle may well repeat. (Kevin McCarthy should be aware of a similar risk, but in addition to other shortcomings, he lacks McConnell’s savvy.)
Despite the one poll that shows her at 11%, Haley does not crack 10% in any other. In addition, her profile, while perhaps appealing to a large segment of Republicans will be an impediment with others—the racist and misogynist labels did not come out of nowhere, after all.
In other words, Nikki Haley’s chances of actually winning the nomination are minimal, something of which she cannot help but be cognizant. Other than a lightning-in-a-bottle strategy, it is useful to try to divine her motivation for joining the race.
In another kind of race, middle distance running, when one or more of the entrants is trying for a world record, they will often ask someone with no chance of winning but with a good shorter distance speed to enter as the “rabbit.” It is a thankless task, running hard early only to finish last, the only reward for which is the gratitude of the real runners.
Gratitude in a mile race might be a couple of dollars sent the rabbit’s way. In a presidential race, the reward could be greater, perhaps the chance to live at the Naval Observatory, the official residence of the vice president, or to occupy the big office at the Department of State.




















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.