“Mr President,” said a reporter. “You’ve said the war is ‘very complete’ but your defense secretary says, ‘This is just the beginning’. So which is it?” Donald Trump’s eyes darted left and right then down.

“Well, I think you could say both,” he parried.

The muddled response at a press conference in Doral, Florida this week fell short of the inspiring oratory and clear strategy expected from a leader in wartime.

Yet it aligned perfectly with the 47th US president's approach.

The disruptive manner Trump applies to campaigns, congressional negotiations and international trade has now extended to military operations.

He has avoided the grave Oval Office speeches used by past presidents during national emergencies.

No visits to West Point military academy or televised appearances on aircraft carriers have occurred to unite the country.

Even at a solemn transfer ceremony for deceased service members, Trump sported a white baseball cap reading “USA”.

In place of that, the president has issued a rapid series of social media posts, impromptu comments and rapidly evolving aims.

This turmoil might bewilder the opponent and allow Trump to claim success whenever he decides.

However, it risks destabilizing his own forces.

Jonathan Alter, a presidential historian who authored books on Franklin Roosevelt, Barack Obama and Jimmy Carter, said: “He’s a chaos agent and that’s what he specializes in.

He doesn’t think any further ahead than the next news cycle and so you get an on-again off-again zigzag foreign policy.”

Alter added: “He lies as easily as he breathes so to believe anything out of his mouth like, ‘we demand unconditional surrender’ – well, two days later, he won’t be demanding it anymore and he’ll pretend he never said it. His words are at some level meaningless except, because they’re backed by so much weaponry, they take on enormous importance.”

Since directing the assault on Iran, Trump has faced challenges in convincing a doubtful American audience why the preventive strike was essential and how it fits his commitment to avoid the "forever wars" of recent years.

Among various justifications given was his "feeling" that Iran was preparing to strike the US

Karoline Leavitt, the White House press secretary, refined that stance, informing journalists that the president “had a feeling” that was “based on fact”.

But Pentagon authorities have informed congressional aides in confidential sessions that the US lacks evidence showing Iran intended a preemptive assault.

Meanwhile, the war's schedule and targets keep altering.

Pete Hegseth, the war secretary, has stated it depends on the president “whether it’s the beginning, the middle or the end” of the war.

But Trump has varied widely on this issue.

In a single address at a Republican event on Monday, he described the war as a “short-term excursion” that might conclude shortly, then declared “we haven’t won enough”.

During a phone discussion with CBS News, he maintained: “I think the war is very complete, pretty much.”

That same day, the Pentagon's official X account stated: “This is just the beginning – we will not be deterred until the mission is over,” and “We have Only Just Begun to Fight.”

Janessa Goldbeck, a Marine Corps veteran and head of the Vet Voice Foundation, remarked: “That contradiction sends dangerous signals to adversaries about US resolve. When the president says the war is basically over and his Pentagon says it’s just the beginning, that tells the world the strategy is not under control.”

She added: “His fear is motivating him to try to find an exit strategy without comprehending the reality of what he has launched the United States into illegally and without congressional authorization.”

At a rally resembling a campaign event in Kentucky on Wednesday, Trump amplified the inconsistencies.

He said of the war: “We won. The first hour, it was over.” But soon after, he conceded the task remained unfinished.

“We don’t want to leave early, do we? We got to finish the job.”

Standards for how a US war leader acts and communicates have developed over 250 years.

George Washington, the initial president, had commanded the Continental Army to triumph in the revolutionary war against Britain.

Abraham Lincoln managed the civil war's dire threat, capturing the nation's essence in his Gettysburg address.

Franklin Roosevelt guided the "arsenal of democracy" amid World War II, offering comfort through fireside chats on radio.

Lyndon Johnson and George W. Bush found it hard to promote their engagements in Vietnam and Iraq.

All were anticipated to blend steady demeanor and tactical acumen with regard for foes and sympathy for casualties.

Trump, as frequently, has discarded the norms.

On social platforms, his administration has released energetic videos blending actual explosions from the war on Iran with action film characters, video game clips and renowned sports figures.

At one gathering, Trump mentioned US troop deaths before suddenly shifting to praise his intended ballroom.

Goldbeck said: “The way that he has spoken about casualties so far is absolutely unconscionable to me as someone who’s worn the uniform. It shouldn’t be something flippant.”

The president has also tried to shift blame for the strike on a girls’ school in southern Iran on the war's opening day, which claimed at least 175 lives, mostly children.

Last Saturday, he attributed the incident to Iran, claiming its forces are “very inaccurate” with weapons.

Trump wrongly asserted that Tehran possessed Tomahawks, a US-made system accessible only to the US and select partners.

An initial US military probe has apparently found the US culpable for the attack.

“I don’t know about it,” Trump said when questioned on the findings and if he took accountability.

There appears scant evidence his command is consolidating the nation.

Latest surveys indicate his choice to strike Iran lacks the typical flag-rallying boost seen at the onset of recent US conflicts.

Roughly half of respondents in Quinnipiac and Fox News polls stated the military moves in Iran render the US “less safe”, with only about 30% in each saying it improved safety.

The president's inability to present a consistent argument might pose a political risk, especially if he must seek extra congressional funds beyond the budget to restock missiles.

Joel Rubin, an ex-deputy assistant secretary of state, said: “If you don’t have their political support, you tank the policy quickly.”

Unlike Bush, who obtained a 2003 Iraq war approval from Congress with notable Democratic support, Trump functions independently, Rubin noted.

“He is the most communicative president we’ve ever had. He’s out there every single day tweeting or posting or whatever. But he’s also the least clear on hard policy issues we’ve ever had. On taxes or tariffs or health care or war and peace, you literally can’t pin down what he’s going for. It’s a real paradox.”

Such vagueness offers Trump a possible benefit: absent specific goals give him an inherent withdrawal option.

As he never set a firm success measure, he can announce victory and depart anytime.

Matthew Hoh, an Iraq war veteran and senior fellow at the Eisenhower Media Network, said: “We can be glib and we can say, well, maybe there’s a genius in that because if you don’t set any clear goals no one can hold you to them. Donald Trump could be typing up a Truth Social message right now saying the war is over.”

But this adaptability harms US trustworthiness.

Hoh added: “Whether you’re a friend or foe of the United States and you’re watching this; you are at best confused by it but also likely frightened by it.”

In a related development, allies have been unsettled.

British Prime Minister Keir Starmer and Spanish Prime Minister Pedro Sánchez drew Trump's ire for perceived inadequate backing of his selected war.

On Wednesday, he said of Spain: “I think they’ve been very bad – not good at all. We may cut off trade with Spain.”

If Trump follows a past model, it could be Richard Nixon’s “madman theory” – maintaining enemies unsure of a leader’s rationality and boundaries to gain negotiation advantage.

But prior leaders recognized that armed action demands a carefully built story.

Bill Whalen, a research fellow at Stanford University's Hoover Institution and former speechwriter, compared Trump’s method to Frank Capra’s 1940s Why We Fight films, which clearly outlined freedom versus oppression stakes for Americans.

Whalen said: “Trump has not been as clear and concise as Capra in that regard and that’s something that’s missing here, which the White House needs to drill down on. Some days, the war is about 47 years of Iranian 'mischief'. On other days, it’s about an urgency because they were only weeks away from nuclear weapons. The White House needs to be clearer on this front.”

The uncertainty of war persists.

The US military claims it has largely demolished Iran's navy and significantly reduced its missile and drone launch capabilities against neighbors.

Yet the vital Strait of Hormuz, carrying about 20% of global oil daily, stays mostly shut to commerce.

Chris Wright, the energy secretary, shared then removed a tweet on Tuesday asserting the US navy had safely guided an oil tanker through the strait.

In a Friday interview, Trump was questioned by Fox News host Brian Kilmeade on when the war would conclude.

“When I feel it,” he replied, “when I feel it in my bones.”

Goldbeck of the Vet Voice Foundation noted: “President Trump launched a war without defining the mission and the goals of this war have changed multiple times. He seems to have expected regime change on the cheap but we’re clearly seeing an escalation with no end in sight and his own Pentagon is contradicting him in real time. It is a real mess.”