The Canadian trucker action had more of a strategy, I'm not sure how much it achieved. I consider these things to be more direct action than protest per se. The 2003 Iraq war marches were protests, and while they were not successful in stopping the war they made it clear it was not a popular war.

With direct action, perhaps you make it too costly to oppose your cause. Restaurants can only handle so many sit-ins where they refuse to serve and there's no room for paying customers. Sabotage might make it too costly to insure a project and its contractors could pull out. Blockading important shipping routes might mean that you get invited to the table to avoid an actual battle. But this must be balanced against the risk that you will be arrested, injured or killed with popular support. The same people who blocked the bridge for Gaza probably found the trucker action illegitimate.

I've participated in all aspects of politics and one thing I know now is how important communications are and how difficult to do right. The right wing in the US has been working very hard at that for 50 years, through heavy persuasion and agenda setting. If you start to show interest in their POV, they will reach out to you constantly with direct mail, push polling, focus groups, rallies, clubs, and of course Fox News and talk radio. Other causes, like climate, peace, environment, and equality, are less coordinated, although at times they are able to set the agenda. They rarely stay in front for very long, and attempts to unite their work often break down to fighting over which one is more important.

Sorry for the rant, but this has been very front-of-mind recently for me.