Unlike past administrations that used a structured National Security Council process, Trump's decision-making is more ad-hoc. He relies on a small advisory group and is equally influenced by outside figures like Lindsey Graham or newspaper editorial boards, potentially creating information silos.

One can believe that Iran's jihadist regime must be removed for global security, while simultaneously believing the Trump administration is too corrupt and incompetent to be trusted with that task. These seemingly contradictory thoughts are necessary for an adequate view of the situation.

Contrary to the belief that military pressure yields results, Senator Chris Murphy argues that escalation is ineffective against Iran. He proposes a counter-intuitive strategy: the quickest way to bring Iran to the negotiating table and reopen the vital shipping lane is to unilaterally end the conflict and withdraw the threat of military action.

The administration aggressively talks about regime change, making promises to the Iranian opposition. However, the military actions and follow-up policies are not scaled to achieve this ambitious goal, creating a strategic disconnect that undermines the operation's credibility and clarity of purpose.

The administration sent deeply contradictory messages about Iran's nuclear capabilities. One official claimed Iran was a week from a bomb's worth of uranium, while Trump himself said the program was "blown to smithereens." This strategic ambiguity or internal division makes it impossible to discern a coherent policy or the true urgency of the threat.

Trump's aggressive rhetoric, like threatening to bomb Iran, is a recurring negotiating tactic. Opponents misinterpret it as literal intent, but his failure to act after deadlines pass, as with the Strait of Hormuz, reveals it's a bluff to gain leverage.

Governor Shapiro argues the primary failure of the war with Iran was President Trump's inability to define the mission's objectives. He contends that without a clear 'why' for entering a conflict, there can be no clear strategy for exiting it, which puts military lives at risk and undermines national security.

President Trump and his administration are sending contradictory signals on the Iran conflict, simultaneously claiming it is 'very complete' while also preparing for further action. This inconsistency confuses markets and allies, pointing to a severe lack of a coherent and unified strategy within the administration.

Sam Harris argues one can simultaneously believe that toppling the Iranian regime is a correct moral objective, while also recognizing that the Trump administration's execution is dangerously inept. This separates the strategic goal from the tactical and political leadership carrying it out.