The failure to militarily secure the Strait of Hormuz is a major strategic concession. It demonstrates a critical vulnerability and effectively hands Iran control over a global economic chokepoint, allowing them to wield immense leverage over international trade.

Despite the Strait of Hormuz closure being a long-theorized scenario, the US military response was 'insufficient' and lacked preparedness. Iran achieved a near-total shutdown with minimal force, relying on the *threat* of attack, revealing a significant gap in US strategic readiness.

A likely outcome of the conflict is Iran establishing control over the Strait of Hormuz and charging tolls for passage. This would mirror Russia's control over the Northern Sea Route, fundamentally altering freedom of navigation and creating a new economic reality where a state actor monetizes a critical global chokepoint.

The US has long used the threat of military force to keep the Strait of Hormuz open. By failing to act despite a large naval presence, it has revealed this deterrent is hollow. This hands Iran a proven economic weapon and erodes the credibility of US power projection globally.

The specific targeting choices in the initial Iran strikes—leadership, navy warships, and military infrastructure—suggest the primary goal is economic control, specifically securing the Strait of Hormuz. Had the true objective been nuclear deterrence, the focus would have been on destroying nuclear facilities, which was not the case.

Iran's victory condition isn't military dominance but strategic disruption. By using asymmetric warfare—mines, drones, and missiles—to create chaos in the Strait of Hormuz, it can halt the flow of oil. This cracks the petrodollar system and achieves its primary geopolitical objective without needing to defeat the US Navy in a conventional battle.

Previous administrations didn't attack Iran not due to a failure of nerve but because of a sober assessment of the strategic consequences. They understood that while the U.S. military could execute the strikes, Iran could always close the Strait of Hormuz, and there was no viable long-term plan for victory, making restraint the wiser strategic choice.

Iran employs inexpensive weapons against shipping in the Strait of Hormuz. This asymmetric strategy avoids direct military confrontation while making the risk too high for insured commercial vessels, effectively closing the strait without a formal blockade.

The strategy of continuing a war of attrition to degrade Iran's military capabilities has a critical flaw. Even if missile launches are reduced by over 90%, Iran only needs to maintain a very small volume of attacks on the Strait of Hormuz to effectively keep the vital waterway closed, thereby nullifying the primary objective of the US and its allies.