President Donald Trump is applying the unpredictable style he used to build his business empire and political brand to the more complex and sensitive role of a wartime leader. Supporters appreciate his tendency to disrupt established norms, including those of the Republican establishment. He often avoids taking clear positions to maintain flexibility. While his approach frequently lacks detail and historical context, his personal demeanor projects an air of certainty.

Trump's decisive approach achieved success in a bold action this January, when U.S. forces raided and transferred Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro from his official residence to a prison in New York. However, in his numerous public statements regarding the Iran war, he has yet to demonstrate the gravity and clarity traditionally expected from a wartime president.

Currently, Trump faces multiple converging crises in this conflict. Tehran's resilient resistance could lead to a prolonged stalemate. Following Iran's effective blockade of the Strait of Hormuz, oil prices have surged, exacerbating economic difficulties. Domestically, the resignation of a pro-MAGA senior national security official on Tuesday highlighted the political rebellion Trump is confronting.

Trump appeared surprised by the intensity of Iran's retaliatory strikes against U.S. allies in the Gulf region. He also seemed unprepared for the blockade of the Strait of Hormuz, a scenario many experts had long predicted. Furthermore, his attempts to pressure allies into sending naval vessels to the Strait of Hormuz failed, as they refused to join a war they were not consulted on.

A wartime president who cannot clearly articulate the reasons for war and an endgame strategy risks strategic drift and losing public support. However, it is still too early to fully assess this conflict. U.S.-Israeli airstrikes appear to have dealt a devastating blow to Iran's ability to threaten the region and the U.S. with its nuclear program and ballistic missile projects. Following the deaths of numerous senior Iranian regime figures on Tuesday, including long-time political leader Ali Larijani, the future of Iran's politics is unpredictable. Time may prove that some of Trump's instincts were shrewd, and his tolerance for risk achieved outcomes other presidents could not.

But if the conflict concludes with the Strait of Hormuz remaining blocked, the world economy held hostage, and Iran facing harsher repression under a reconstituted regime, it would be difficult for him to claim victory. The same would be true if Iran retains highly enriched uranium usable for a future nuclear program. Resolving these dilemmas might require riskier actions than those attempted so far, likely involving ground troops. Such operations demand careful planning, clear objectives, and proper management of consequences and public expectations from the president.

The resignation of former pro-MAGA U.S. National Counterterrorism Center Director Joe Kent on Tuesday sent shockwaves through Washington. This event indicates Trump may be losing grip on his political coalition and highlights significant problems with the president's justification for the war. Kent, a Special Forces veteran whose wife was killed in an ISIS attack in Syria, stated in his resignation letter to Trump that he was misled by Israeli misinformation into believing Iran could be quickly defeated. He also argued that the Islamic Republic of Iran did not pose an "imminent" threat to U.S. national security, directly contradicting statements from Trump and senior administration officials.

"Either you can chart a new course for the nation, or we can continue our slide into decay and chaos," Kent wrote. "The cards are in your hands." Some Republican lawmakers labeled views in Kent's letter as antisemitic. Representative Don Bacon stated on social media, "Good riddance. Antisemitism is an evil I despise, and we will not tolerate it in our government." Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell expressed similar sentiments, criticizing the "vile antisemitism" in the resignation letter.

Kent shares little common ground with prominent Democrats who oppose the war. He has previously faced criticism for associations with far-right figures, including white supremacists and Nazi sympathizers. However, against the backdrop of intense debate over the war within the MAGA movement and conservative media, his resignation signals that if the president fears a political rebellion over the war, it could come from his right flank. This could be a significant factor for a president who consistently avoids breaking with his base.

Kent's resignation also underscores the lingering impact of comments made this month by Secretary of State Marco Rubio, who stated the U.S. preemptively went to war based on a belief that Israel was about to be attacked and Iran would respond by striking U.S. forces. Trump has denied rushing to war, insisting he was more proactive than Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu. Although polls show many Republican voters still trust Trump, signs of dissent within the base are crucial, as the war is already unpopular with a majority of voters. Historically, many U.S. wars have faltered when domestic public opinion turned.

On Tuesday, Trump provided critics with more reasons to question his war rationale, his reluctance to state when the war will end, and his inconsistent positions. Just days after urging allies to send ships to help open the Strait of Hormuz, he insisted he never sought help. "I wasn't pressing hard overall because I felt even if I pressed, they might come, but we don't need the help," he said. When asked if sending ground troops could turn Iran into another Vietnam-like disaster, Trump replied, "No, I'm not worried... I'm really not afraid of anything." Another journalist asked Trump about plans after military operations conclude. "We have many plans," he said, without providing specifics. "If we left now, they would need ten years to rebuild. But we're not ready to leave, but we'll be leaving soon, not too long from now."

Trump's justifications for starting the war have sometimes been contradictory. He has suggested, without evidence, that Iran posed an imminent threat to the U.S. When launching strikes, he seemed to aim for regime change, but later downplayed the possibility of a popular uprising in Iran. On Monday, the president raised new concerns by seeming unsure of his own reasons for war. He denied the war was about oil but offered a vague comment: "We don't need the oil, but we went to war. Almost, you could say, we went to war out of habit, which is not a good thing. But we went to war because we have very important allies there."

Confusion is further compounded by Trump repeatedly declaring the war won while arguing it's too early to withdraw. He stated he would know the right time to withdraw based on "instinct." His trust in his own near-mystical intuition has helped him survive numerous personal, business, and political crises. But as the war approaches a critical and potentially painful phase, this represents another high-stakes gamble.