The administration's stated objectives for the Iran war keep changing as the bombs fall.

The American campaign against Iran, now identified by the Department of War as Operation Epic Fury, is, on day three of major combat operations, a campaign whose stated objectives differ from one statement to the next. The Press Secretary will, on Wednesday, deliver a list of four. The President had, by Sunday, named at least seven. The Defense Secretary has said the war “has only just begun.” The President has said the regime’s leadership is “gone.”

The chronology, in the standard sense, is the part to mark. On the day the strikes began, the explanation was the prevention of an Iranian nuclear weapon. By the next afternoon, the explanation included the destruction of the regime’s missile arsenal, the annihilation of the Iranian Navy, and the dismantling of the regime’s terrorist proxies. By Sunday evening, the President had added regime change to the list. By Monday, regime change had been removed from the list, and the official talking point was that the United States does not seek regime change in Iran. Each statement is on the record. Each statement is, in the official voice, the operative position.

Reporters, in the West Wing briefing room, on Tuesday, asked the Press Secretary which version was the operative one. The Press Secretary delivered a four-point statement that did not address the earlier seven-point statement. Asked about the discrepancy, the Press Secretary said the President’s objectives have been clear and unchanging.

The phrase “clear and unchanging” is, in the official communications environment, a phrase used to describe an objective that has been changing.

There is, in the documentary record of the war’s first seventy-two hours, no fewer than four different framings of why the United States is at war with Iran. The framings include: the prevention of a nuclear weapon, the elimination of the regime’s missile capability, the annihilation of the regime’s navy, the elimination of the regime’s terrorist proxies, the support of the Israeli campaign, the response to a perceived threat to American interests in the region, and, briefly, the removal of the regime itself. The framings are, in the formal sense, not mutually exclusive. They are also not, in the formal sense, identical.

The reason this matters is operational. A military force in the field, with a stated objective, can plan a campaign around the objective. A military force in the field, with seven shifting objectives, cannot.

The Pentagon, in a closed-door briefing to the Senate on the war’s sixth day, will tell members that the campaign has cost $11.3 billion in munitions. The members will be told the operation is on schedule. The members will not be told which schedule.

A serious country, in a serious moment, would issue a single set of objectives, on paper, and stick to them. A less serious country would do what is being done: issue a new set every other day and call the inconsistency consistency.

Calmly documenting the decline.