If the U.S. bombing campaign had successfully eliminated Iran's nuclear program, there would be no reason to negotiate. The fact that talks occurred immediately after the strikes was a clear, albeit subtle, indicator that the core objective—securing the nuclear material—had not been met.

In intense conflicts, short-term ceasefires are frequently a strategic maneuver rather than a genuine move towards peace. While peace talks are publicly highlighted, both sides often use the downtime to rebuild their arsenals and rest their forces, making the truce a tool of war itself.

The "absolutely clinical" US raid to capture Venezuela's president is lauded as a military success. However, historical precedents from Afghanistan in 2001 and Iraq in 2003 show that initial military prowess in toppling a regime is no guarantee of long-term strategic success, which depends on far more complex political factors.

The "TACO" acronym serves as a predictive model for Trump's foreign policy. It suggests a pattern of aggressive posturing and military action followed by a rapid search for a diplomatic "off-ramp" once resistance is met. Markets and adversaries can anticipate this behavior, expecting a short conflict despite initial escalation.

Defining success as an ambitious, all-or-nothing outcome like 'regime change' is a critical mistake. Instead, administrations should set clear, measurable military objectives, such as degrading missile capabilities or naval threats. This allows them to define success, declare victory, and create a clear off-ramp for military campaigns.

In contemporary warfare, authoritarian regimes and non-state actors are unlikely to ever sign a formal surrender. This means victory can no longer be defined by the other side "crying uncle," but must be measured by the successful and sustained degradation of the enemy's capacity to pose a threat.

Initial military actions, like successful bombings, can feel like victories. However, they often fail to solve the core political issue, trapping leaders into escalating the conflict further to achieve the original strategic goal, as they don't want to accept failure.

A government's inability to answer basic questions like "Why now?" during a military action is perceived as incompetence. This defensive communication signals a lack of conviction to adversaries, encouraging them to simply endure until American political will collapses.

Nations like the US and USSR prolong involvement in failed conflicts like Afghanistan primarily due to "reputational risk." The goal shifts from achieving the original mission to avoiding the perception of failure, creating an endless commitment where objectives continually morph.