Iran has just realised that the Emperor doesn’t have any clothes, and Donald Trump’s latest outburst on Truth Social indicates that he is starting to realise that the game is up.

The president of peace, the one elected on a ‘no foreign wars’ ticket, is faced with an impossible choice: commit ground forces and clear the diary to attend dozens more dignified transfer ceremonies or admit defeat and return to the American public with his tail between his legs amid sky-high gas prices.

The US President has set a deadline of 20:00 Washington DC time on Tuesday (1am our time) for Tehran to “make a deal” that is acceptable to Trump, although there seems little incentive for Iran to do so.

As a self-confessed news junkie and follower of American politics, there is very little that shocks me these days about Donald Trump, but his Easter post telling Iran to “open the F*****’ Strait” of Hormuz or face “hell” stopped me in my tracks, as did his threat to wipe out an entire civilisation.

Beyond the bravado and bluster, where are we?

The possibility that Trump could order ground forces to conduct an amphibious landing on Kharg Island cannot be ruled out.

Given that nobody anticipated a raid to kidnap the leader of another country, almost no option can be taken off the table when discussing US military strategy – even the bad ones.

50,000 troops have been deployed to the Middle East, including elements of the 82nd Airborne and US Marine Corps, the most capable forces to land on and hold vital ground.

The island has been struck more than 50 times in the last 24 hours, a potential indicator that defensive positions are being softened in advance of an assault.

On the flip side, strikes on the island could be the latest negotiating tactic, a desperate attempt to convince the Iranians that they are prepared to attack, although all sides know that an amphibious landing on a heavily defended island is not an attractive proposition.

Iran has been preparing for war against America for 47 years. Military exercises for decades have been structured around rehearsing the defence of key infrastructure.

Defensive positions on the island will be prepared to provide maximum advantage to the defending force, with interlocking arcs of fire, concrete bunkers and tunnels. Amphibious operations against a well-prepared opponent are among the most complex and costly military undertakings.

The cost in lives lost will be huge, and it is unlikely to be a price that even Donald J Trump can afford.

Donald Trump has once more threatened to target key Iranian infrastructure, a threat that, if carried out, would likely constitute a war crime.

He has, of course, made the threat before, only to back down in traditional Trump style, but we could well reach a point where he has no option but to follow through.

It is worth noting that bombing infrastructure such as bridges, in and of itself, does not constitute a war crime.

Bridges are known in military planning cycles as “key terrain”: pieces of infrastructure that are crucial to moving troops and equipment to and from the fight and that can thus constitute a legitimate military target.

But Trump didn’t just threaten to bomb infrastructure with military value; he threatened to bomb all infrastructure and language matters.

Margaret Donovan, a former lawyer in the US Army’s JAG Corps, told CNN: “There’s a lot of former military lawyers and legal scholars who have been very hesitant to say any bombing of civilian infrastructure is a war crime, because there are instances where you can do it.

“But the President’s rhetoric this weekend, for me and I think for many others, changed our opinion on that.

“We’re seeing basically a direct threat to something that we know is going to be catastrophic to civilians.”

Depriving Iranians of infrastructure that provides energy, electricity, clean water and a semblance of normal life amid conflict is not only likely to constitute a war crime but is entirely self-defeating.

It makes the hardliners more radical and serves only to turn those critical of the opposition, who just months ago were protesting armed with American flags, against the West.

Syria and Libya are just two recent examples of the limits of military power delivered solely by air. It is effective in the short term for achieving a limited set of objectives. But in the long run, it rarely does the good guys many favours. More often than not, it empowers the radical elements that the attackers claim to be fighting.

Modern history is littered with examples of military and civic action marking the beginning of the end of a presidency.

The disaster at Suez marked the end of Britain as a global power.

The ill-fated military operation to rescue the 66 American hostages held in Tehran, which ended with eight US servicemen dead and no hostages rescued, became the defining event of Jimmy Carter’s presidency and laid the foundations for his mauling at the hands of Ronald Reagan in the 1980 presidential election.

The disastrous response of George W Bush to Hurricane Katrina in 2005 marked the effective end of the lame duck’s presidency.

Iran could ultimately prove to be the same for Trump.

The fact is, for all his projections of strength, Donald Trump is set to become a lame-duck president, overseeing the opposite of what he campaigned on, with approval ratings in the toilet and a midterm decimation on the horizon.

He is in a weak position. Iran knows it and also knows it is in a position of strength, given its iron-like grip on global oil supplies. With that in mind, is it any wonder they have refused to bow down in a manner typical of European leaders since January 2025?

Iran is prepared to point out that the Emperor has no clothes, Europe in its resolve to come to the US’ aid is beginning to realise the same and that makes Trump dangerous.

A severe escalation is unlikely to be helpful to the United States, but when a wounded animal is backed into a corner, it lashes out more often than not.