Operation Boomerang: A return to military strikes reveals no good options — for Iran or the US
Operation Boomerang: Military Strikes Reveal No Easy Solutions for Washington and Tehran
Operation Boomerang – Brett McGurk, a CNN global affairs analyst who held senior national security roles across four presidential administrations, offers fresh perspective on the escalating conflict. Having served under Presidents George W. Bush, Barack Obama, Donald Trump, and Joe Biden, McGurk brings considerable experience to analyzing the current Middle East crisis.
Unclear Objectives Lead to Unforeseen Consequences
When American and Israeli forces initiated their military campaign against Iran in February, McGurk invoked a foundational concept from classical military theory. The principle suggests that when a leader lacks clarity about desired outcomes before committing to military action, those outcomes will be shaped by circumstances rather than deliberate choice. This insight comes from Carl von Clausewitz, the nineteenth-century military philosopher whose work remains relevant despite the dramatic developments in the region.
Neither Washington nor Jerusalem articulated precise goals when the assault on Iran commenced approximately five months prior. President Trump articulated multiple objectives simultaneously: potentially altering Iran’s government structure, weakening its military infrastructure, and eliminating nuclear materials remaining from summer airstrikes he had authorized.
“If a leader — in this case, President Donald Trump — is not clear in his own mind regarding the objectives to be achieved before launching a military operation, the objectives will be defined for him and not in ways he may have anticipated.”
The Strait of Hormuz Becomes Central to the Conflict
Iran’s response proved swift and comprehensive. Tehran launched attacks against nations throughout the Middle East while simultaneously targeting commercial vessels navigating the Strait of Hormuz. This critical waterway handles approximately twenty percent of worldwide energy commerce, making it indispensable to global economic stability.
Today, securing passage through the strait has emerged as America’s primary goal—an objective that, as Clausewitz might have predicted, received little attention when hostilities commenced. The United States and Iran now approach the thirty-day milestone of their sixty-day memorandum of understanding, an agreement brokered between President Trump and Iranian leader Masoud Pezeshkian.
This document ostensibly offered Iran concessions through reduced sanctions, contingent upon ensuring safe navigation for commercial shipping. However, the agreement’s language appears to permit Tehran considerable discretion in determining how arrangements function within the strait during the specified period.
Diplomatic Tensions Mount as MOU Unravels
Tehran interprets the agreement according to its literal text, while American officials reference supplementary understandings embedded within the broader diplomatic framework. Complications intensified last week when Iranian unmanned aerial vehicles struck two commercial vessels—one transporting liquefied natural gas from Qatar, another carrying crude petroleum from Saudi Arabia.
Reports indicate Iran communicated through intermediaries that these attacks represented errors rather than deliberate escalation. Some observers suggested the incidents reflected internal divisions within Tehran between factions seeking to preserve the agreement and those willing to risk heightened confrontation with Washington.
President Trump responded promptly with retaliatory aerial bombardments designed to enforce America’s interpretation of the memorandum. These strikes followed additional Iranian attacks on maritime traffic, and within days, the agreement effectively collapsed.
On Monday, Trump declared the reimposition of a blockade on Iranian ports while announcing America’s willingness to serve as the strait’s protector, provided compensation materializes in some manner. Concurrently, American forces conducted further airstrikes within Iranian territory, while Tehran targeted two additional commercial vessels near the United Arab Emirates coastline, resulting in the death of an Indian seafarer.
Asymmetrical Warfare Favors the Defender
Until stability returns, commercial vessels may hesitate to traverse the Strait of Hormuz, potentially driving oil prices upward once more. Such economic pressure could compel the White House to reconsider its approach to the memorandum.
Consequently, both nations have returned to conditions resembling those preceding the agreement’s original signing. Iran seems to calculate that sustained pressure on the strait will eventually force American withdrawal, thereby establishing Tehran as the dominant force controlling this vital global chokepoint. Meanwhile, Washington bets that renewed pressure will compel Iranian compliance, restoring the commercial flow that characterized pre-war conditions.
In this dynamic, Iran possesses two distinct advantages. The first represents an ancient benefit: geographical terrain frequently serves as the defender’s greatest asset. Tehran leverages its strategic location to transform the conflict into an asymmetrical contest, effectively neutralizing Washington’s conventional military superiority.
The second advantage reflects modern technological advancement: drone warfare. Iran’s Shahed drones, relatively inexpensive to manufacture, can journey more than one thousand miles to attack slow-moving oil tankers during nighttime hours. While drones can be intercepted and redirected, a single successful strike—or even the credible threat of one—suffices to halt commercial operations.
Together, these complementary strengths—geographical and technological—tilt the balance toward Iran, at least temporarily. They simultaneously constrain American options if Washington seeks to genuinely ensure uninterrupted commercial navigation through this critical waterway.
