Editor's note: Thomas O. Falk, a special commentator on current affairs for CGTN, is a London-based political analyst and commentator. He holds a Master of Arts in international relations from the University of Birmingham and specializes in US affairs. The article reflects the author's opinions and not necessarily the views of CGTN.

The Trump administration has built a reputation for rather erratic decision-making. What the current confrontation with Iran reveals, however, is something even more concerning: a governing model that substitutes impulse for any form of planning and loyalty for competence. The result has been an utter disaster.

We should not have expected a coherent strategy when US President Donald Trump gave the green light to act against Iran. He did so without seeking congressional approval or even any sort of bipartisan support. There was no communication; no coherent objective was ever expressed. Allies were not informed. But worst of all, as now becomes increasingly apparent, no adequate preparation for the most predictable consequences of that action was ever taken.

War is not simply the application of force but the orchestration of military, economic and diplomatic instruments toward a defined objective. By that standard, the administration's performance has been abysmal.

The clearest example is the Strait of Hormuz. Any serious analysis of a conflict with Iran begins here. Roughly a fifth of the global oil supply transits this narrow waterway. Iran has spent decades developing precisely the capabilities required to disrupt it. The resulting energy shock is therefore not collateral damage but the mechanism of Iranian retaliation.

Markets have responded exactly as one would expect. Oil prices have surged, shipping costs have spiked, insurers have recalibrated their risk assessments, and governments have been forced into defensive measures. None of this required sophisticated foresight, only basic competence. A functioning national security process would have treated Hormuz disruption as a baseline assumption and planned accordingly: securing multinational naval commitments to maintain flow, coordinating in advance with major producers to stabilize supply and preparing a synchronized release of strategic reserves to dampen volatility.

Instead, the administration has been reactive. The economic consequences of the conflict have been managed as they arise, rather than anticipated and mitigated in advance.

The same pattern is evident in the handling of civilians. From the moment tensions escalated, tens of thousands of Americans and allied nationals in the Gulf were exposed to risk. Evacuation planning is not optional in such circumstances but integral. It requires pre-positioned aircraft, negotiated access to regional airspace and bases, and clear interagency coordination. Yet what has unfolded is a patchwork response: charter flights assembled at speed, uneven communication and visible strain on logistical capacity. These are the symptoms of a system reacting late, not executing a prepared plan.

Why was the system unprepared? The answer lies less in the specifics of Iran than in the structure of the administration itself.

This White House has consistently prioritized personal loyalty over domain expertise. That choice has consequences. Strategy is not the product of a single leader's instinct. It emerges from institutions staffed by individuals capable of rigorous analysis, dissent and scenario planning. When those institutions are hollowed out or sidelined, the quality of decision-making degrades.

The prominence of figures such as US Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth illustrates the point. Media fluency is not a substitute for operational competence. War planning demands experience in logistics, alliance management and the integration of military and economic tools. Elevating individuals without that background into positions of influence narrows the range of perspectives considered and reduces the likelihood that uncomfortable but necessary questions are asked.

We have gone down a similar road with Trump before. His approach to trade provides a direct precedent. Tariffs were initially framed as a targeted instrument against China. In practice, they expanded into a near-global policy, affecting allies and adversaries alike. The rationale shifted over time, the scope widened, and the economic consequences became increasingly diffuse. American businesses faced higher input costs, supply chains were disrupted, and uncertainty became a defining feature of the policy environment.

The legal dimension proved equally revealing.

The sweeping use of tariffs eventually ran into constitutional constraints, with the US Supreme Court striking down key elements as unlawful. What had been presented as a bold assertion of economic sovereignty was exposed as overreach – poorly grounded in law, insufficiently coordinated and ultimately unsustainable. Once again, the pattern held: decisive action, limited planning and corrective intervention by external reality.

The Iran conflict follows the same trajectory, but with higher stakes. Trade disputes can be recalibrated. Wars cannot be so easily unwound. The costs of miscalculation are immediate and, in some cases, irreversible.

Allies are already adjusting. European governments, long accustomed to American leadership, now face the consequences of decisions taken without their full participation. Energy shocks reverberate through their economies. Security risks rise in adjacent regions. Political leaders must respond to domestic pressures generated by a conflict they did not shape. Under such conditions, cooperation becomes conditional. The cohesion that underpins effective Western strategy erodes.

The United States retains immense power. It can absorb shocks, correct course and impose outcomes over time. But power without discipline is an unreliable instrument. It produces movement without direction, action without coherence.

The current crisis with Iran is not simply a test of American resolve. It is a test of American competence. Thus far, the evidence suggests that the administration has prioritized the former at the expense of the latter. In statecraft, that is a dangerous trade.

(If you want to contribute and have specific expertise, please contact us at opinions@cgtn.com. Follow @thouse_opinions on Twitter to discover the latest commentaries in the CGTN Opinion Section.)