Instinctively, I prefer realistic scenarios for philosophising; which is why I was never keen on Philippa Foot's trolley problem thought experiments - although those are psychologically revealing. I prefer a more realistic imaginary, such as holding real power to order assassination of certain politicians to protect the Gaza ceasefire deal and save lives across the board, and yet being troubled thereby. My mind would be less troubled by the thought that I would still be committing murders, even with an altruistic motive. It would be troubled more severely by the reflection that the cases of Franz Ferdinand in 1914, Kennedy in 1963, and Rabin in 1995 show assassination works more as a disruptor than a healer.
It's probably true that we can never entirely eliminate moral dilemmas. But I would suggest that the more often they arise (and they are frequent in international affairs) the more they suggest our morals are in need of reform. Centuries have gone by since the philosophers Bentham and Kant tried to reform morals (as distinct from 'moral reform'), and in ways that could work without religion. Sadly, they succeeded only in creating new schools of thought; the moral substrate was much less affected. Modern society has indeed changed the moral substrate to a degree, for instance with decline of martial - and female - honour or the growth of ecology and animal rights. But these changes have been largely unconscious and unplanned. Conservatives tend to like that, but in the post-1945 world where general survival can always be at stake, conscious deliberation on our politics and morals gains real safety value. Which takes me back to the Gaza ceasefire thought experiment again: do I just go ahead and order my special forces team to get rid of anyone in the way?