Offhand, two sovereign states — the US and Israel — conspired to wage war against Iran, another sovereign nation. The latter’s foreign policy is found to be highly controversial, leading to sanctions and geopolitical tensions with largely US allies, not the least of which is Israel.

Still, there ought fundamentally to be parity between and among nations at work and revered here, something not observed but extremely violated in this war of powerful air defense systems.

A regular stream of news and insights floods the universal screen of social media platforms, readily nurturing a clear, broader, and more accurate prognosis of the causes and consequences of what the US president has rather unilaterally launched. The periodic pronouncements not only of Trump but more so of his key spokespersons in this evolving “military action” are built on narratives that lack one-on-one correspondence with existential realities.

There was a premature statement that Iran had been obliterated when, in reality, the “two to three weeks promise” of an end to the US mission only highlighted Iran’s significant success in managing its missile capabilities. For another, a US Senate minority leader even assailed Trump and his planners for failing to see Iran’s use of its control of the Strait of Hormuz as leverage, replete with economic externalities.

This reminded students of geopolitics and H. George Frederickson’s “rational choice theory and irrational behavior” of the foreign policy or economic framework, where both cancel each other as the US begins to plan to open the strait by covert operations but fails.

The truth is US military operations do not succeed as planned owing to the suspicion that deep penetration agents have infiltrated the “network.” Thus, while Trump may have unleashed and demonstrated seeming US military superiority, it has failed in some “economic theoretical tool sets” or counter-espionage.

Along with his top defense and state officials, what they are mouthing are slogans, presumably partly propaganda or “psyops” (psychological operations) and clichés that boil down to mere geopolitical rhetoric.

Trump’s wherewithal may be best described as an oblique version of Adam Smith’s insight in his book, “The Wealth of Nations,” in pursuit of his country’s self-interest. If that were any performance indicator gravitating around his ideological framework called MAGA (Make America Great Again), it bears saying that such a “construct” entirely lacks a strong moral foundation, much less contemplated from a commanding height.

As one commentator observed, Trump decides based on his “own instinct or what he wants.” That trait sounds pretty oxymoronic coming from the supposed greatest leader in the world.

One vocal, right-minded Chinese observer points to, in essence, a “revival of the Cold War” where the US chooses to do what it wants, thus leading to a “fracture” in NATO upon which the US might have heavily relied. The big powers denied the US use of its foreign military bases as a staging ground for this war. Spain, France, Canada, China, Russia, Germany and Australia have shown what they think of how Trump conducts his war.