Trump's erratic approach isn't random; it's a strategy to create chaos and uncertainty. This keeps adversaries off-balance, allowing him to exploit openings that emerge, much like a disruptive CEO. He is comfortable with instability and uses it as a tool for negotiation and advantage.

Administrations that experience initial success with military force, like the Soleimani strike, may start believing they have a 'hot hand.' This leads them to ignore predictable downside scenarios and double down on risky strategies, assuming past luck will continue.

Judging leaders requires a dual framework. One must understand the world as it *is*—a messy place of power dynamics and flawed humans—while also aspiring to how it *ought* to be. Ignoring either perspective leads to a flawed analysis, creating either cynicism or naivety.

Citing Nassim Taleb, a strategy involving many small losses can appear foolish until a single, massive success. This one event rewrites the entire narrative, validating what was previously seen as delusional. History is rewritten by one good day.

Leaders create simplified, emotionally resonant narratives for public consumption that mask the messy, complex, and often ugly truths behind their actions. The real "why" is rarely present in the official story.

Citing Tim Cook's sycophantic White House appearance, Scott Galloway argues that a leader's final actions are what people remember most. Just as with a divorce or leaving a party, being principled at the end is crucial. A late-career misstep can tarnish decades of success.

Trump's direct, aggressive actions often achieve immediate goals (first-order consequences). However, this approach frequently fails to anticipate the strategic, long-term responses from adversaries like China (second and third-order consequences), potentially creating larger, unforeseen problems down the road.

Holding out for morally perfect leaders is naive and paralyzing. The reality of geopolitics is a "knife fight" where leaders inevitably make decisions that result in death. Progress requires working with these flawed individuals rather than disengaging over past actions.

An ideologue, even an anarchist advocating against the state, may support a massive state action if it serves a higher strategic purpose—in this case, disrupting a system they oppose. The perceived hypocrisy is dismissed as irrelevant when compared to the desired outcome, framing it as a solution, not a preferred method of governance.