Leadership should be synonymous with thinking, for sure. Makes sence to define it as the ability to anticipate and navigate complex consequences like you've mentioned a few times. I'd offer that all too often it seems to unconsciously shift to a measure of whether others reach the same conclusions as oneself. But I'll digress.
I recall learning once upon a time the following phrase:
"Leadership is the art of influencing human behaviour so as to accomplish the mission in the manner desired by the leader."
Not everyone uses the same type of brush when painting, and not everyone uses the same style of leadership.
There's some folks who I've learned a lot from when it comes to leadership. Some who I'd follow, some who's style I've adapted to my own, and some who I watch and have learned from so I know what not to do as a leader.
Bringing that over to the Iran/US/Isreal/etc situation, I think that there is a consolidated plan being run by the military leadership. I think that plan will run its course, and will achieve its objectives. I also think that the civilian leadership of the US is doing a very poor job of messaging the reasons, the needs, and the desired outcomes.
But.
With the 'orange dude' and his history with public speaking and such, I think there's a combination of him missing the script more often than he's hit it,
and the media deliberately cueing to only parts of what is being said to make him look worse.
Observe that BBC News got caught creatively editing Hesgeth's speech not that long ago.
Observe also that our own national broadcaster was recently accused of only focusing on negative coverage of the leader of the opposition....and the only way he's managed to get out from under that thumb is to have gone on a podcast south of the border.
Leadership needs to communicate clearly, and while that may be happening internal to the military involved, it is certainly not happening with the civilian leadership.
NS