Apparently, the Starbucks outlets in Jakarta have all re-opened (except for the one damaged in Thursday’s attack).
When it became clear that the operation two days ago was not specifically directed at Starbucks, but at foreigners generally, the company decided the risks did not warrant extending the closure of its stores.
The group responsible for the attack was in a position (on Thursday) to dictate the terms of any resumption of normal business by Starbucks; they could have prohibited the company from re-opening, and forbidden them to make a single dollar from their investments in Indonesia, if they had simply communicated to the company that, yes, Starbucks had been the target.
Because of the operation on Thursday, any threat would have been taken seriously.
This would have given the group the leverage to oblige Starbucks to support any political demand they may have had.
This is how you commandeer corporate power.
The group did not do this, of course, because
(1.) they do not understand this strategy, and
(2.) they probably do not actually have any specific political demands.
The operation, therefore, in my opinion, makes no sense.
These are the two necessary elements: disruption and demands.
Without disruption, there is no incentive for power to acquiesce to demands; without demands, disruption is meaningless and destructive.