The incoherence on display by the Donald Trump administration amid escalating tensions with Tehran has prompted speculations of whether the U.S president is in full control of Washington's Iran policy or whether there are others influencing the strategy.

Some analysts suggest that National Security Adviser John Bolton and Secretary of State Mike Pompeo – both longtime advocates of regime change in Iran – are driving the hawkish policy, while others argue that the apparent confusion in the U.S. strategy is, in fact, indicative of Trump being in charge of the foreign policy, according to a regular survey of experts by Carnegie Middle East Center.

Trump, in a bid to shed the growing impression of incoherence, Tuesday asserted that the U.S. actions weren't led by the desire to topple the Iranian leadership but were aimed at stopping the Islamic Republic from laying its hands on nuclear weapons. "We are not looking for regime change. We are not looking for that at all. They can't have a nuclear weapon," he said during a cabinet meeting in a clear contradiction to the stated positions of his two chief foreign policy advisers.

"Much has been said about the hardline influences of Bolton and Pompeo. They clearly favor a steady, tough message to Iran, and barely disguise a preference for regime change over the behavior modification goals of most American administrations," Ellen Laipson, a former vice chair of the National Intelligence Council, said in the Carnegie survey.

"The Defense Department mostly shares the dark view of Iran's intentions, but does not seek conflict," added Laipson, who has also served as a member of former president Barack Obama's Intelligence Advisory Board and member of the U.S. secretary of state's Foreign Affairs Policy Board.

Iran on Wednesday accused the U.S. of waging "economic terrorism."

Absolute incoherence

Read also: Is U.S. pushing a war with Iran?

Asserting that it is indeed Trump who "controls" the Iran policy, Laipson clarified however that this should not be seen as the president leading a coherent, coordinated policy process.

Earlier this month, in yet another indication of its absolute lack of logic, the White House in a press release stated: "There is little doubt that even before the [nuclear] deal’s existence, Iran was violating its terms." It betrays common sense as to how a country can violate the terms of a deal before its existence.

"Trump sees virtue in surprise and unpredictability, and seems to have a casual response to the threat assessments and options papers presented by the bureaucracy. He trusts his instincts about managing relationships with adversaries, and enjoys the chaos created as he alternately threatens and tries to engage foreign leaders, including the supreme leader of Iran," Laipson remarked.

The contrast between Trump's assertion on Tuesday and the public stands of his top two lieutenants – Bolton and Pompeo – create further confusion about the true intention of the U.S. in Iran.

"By withdrawing from the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), the nuclear deal with Iran, the Trump administration generated a crisis that could lead to military conflict. But the United States lacks a clear objective," Gary Sick, executive director of Gulf 2000 at Columbia University, was quoted as saying in the Carnegie survey.

"Does it intend to overturn the government of Iran or merely to punish it? Does it want a revised JCPOA or something entirely new? Does it wish to separate Iran from its regional allies, or does it merely want to use the Iranian threat to leverage a new alliance with Israel and the Sunni monarchies? Washington's purpose changes from day to day," elucidated the former member of the U.S. National Security Council under President Jimmy Carter.

"President Donald Trump's authority to make foreign policy is not in question, but his capacity to articulate a coherent strategy is. In 2003, the U.S. invaded and changed the government in Iraq without a plan for the day after. Some of the architects of that catastrophe are at the president’s side today. Who is going to warn him against repeating those same mistakes on Iran?" he added in a veiled reference to some of the hawks in the Trump administration including Bolton and Pompeo.

Trump's top lieutenants

It may appear ironic in hindsight that while Trump had run his election campaign on withdrawing from the Iran nuclear deal, he also agreed that the Iraq war was a mistake and other wars in the Middle East would also be mistakes. Now, in Bolton and Pompeo, Trump has two key influencers on foreign policy who championed the cause of the Iraq War.

Bolton in fact is believed to be among the chief architects of the Iraq War. He was one of the most vocal proponents in claiming Iraq had weapons of mass destruction (WMDs) and later involved in shaping U.S. intelligence in the run-up to the war. A hardliner to the core, he hasn't shown any change of heart so far even after the pretexts under which the war was fought were found to be wrong.

While many erstwhile backers of the Iraq War have expressed remorse, Bolton has been steadfast in his opinion that wars for regime change are the best way forward in U.S. strategy against the so-called rogue states. He has been criticized by opponents from remaining intellectually stuck in 2002, according to a report by American news and opinion website Vox.

Pompeo, like Bolton, is believed to have had close ties to hawkish anti-Islam groups and was also a vociferous opponent of the nuclear deal with Iran. Prior to taking charge as the Secretary of State, Pompeo had served as a congressman and as Trump's CIA director.

In 2014, he advocated for a U.S. strike on Iran's nuclear program, claiming incorrectly that it would be an effortless task. "It’s under 2,000 sorties to destroy the Iranian nuclear capacity. This is not an insurmountable task for the coalition forces," he stated. Two years later, Pompeo publicly canvassed for the U.S. Congress to act in order to "change Iranian behavior, and, ultimately, the Iranian regime."

'So, who calls the shots?'

Related story: Trump says he halted U.S. strike on Iran over possible casualties

So, are these two hardliners responsible for the increasingly dangerous standoff with Iran, which appears to be spiraling into a much bigger international conflict in recent weeks?

"The question of who is controlling Iran policy in the Trump administration should feel a little disingenuous. After all, by definition constitutionally it is the president who controls foreign policy. However, observers can be excused a little confusion," Dainelle Pletka, senior vice president, foreign and defense policy studies, at the American Enterprise Institute, told the Carnegie survey.

So who calls the shots? At the end of the day, it will be Trump, said the former senior professional staff member for the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations, where she specialized in the Near East and South Asia.

"Neither he nor his base wishes that the U.S. be involved in another Middle Eastern conflict. That said, the Iranians should not be too complacent. There are many things short of war that can damage the regime in Tehran. Khamenei should not count on Trump to be his savior in the event of a serious Iranian miscalculation," Pletka cautioned.

Garry Samore, director of the Crown Center for Middle East Studies at Brandeis, concurred. "For better or worse, Trump controls Iran policy in his administration. Under the U.S. system, the president is the dominant decision maker in foreign policy and the commander-in-chief of the armed forces," said the former White House coordinator for arms control and WMDs under President Barack Obama and former special assistant and senior director for nonproliferation and export controls under President Bill Clinton.

He stressed that Trump has no reservations about ignoring and overruling his senior foreign policy advisors as seen in his original decision to withdraw from the Iran nuclear deal or, more recently, his decision not to order military strikes against Iran.

"In both cases, Trump acted against the advice of his foreign policy team. The Iran policy reflects Trump's genuine belief that he can force Iran to accept a ‘better’ deal through maximum economic pressure. Unfortunately, Tehran continues to resist Trump’s offer to negotiate, despite severe economic damage," Samore elaborated.

"The Iran policy also reflects Trump's genuine desire to avoid military entanglement in the Middle East. However, Tehran may read Trump’s reluctance to use military force as a green light to break away from the nuclear constraints of the JCPOA and carry out more provocative attacks in the region," he concluded.