The world watches with bated breath: Is this merely a negotiating tactic by Trump, or does it truly mark the beginning of another transformative moment in human history as he claims?

U.S. President Trump has threatened to destroy most of Iran's civilian infrastructure if Tehran refuses to meet conditions including reopening the Strait of Hormuz. He has issued a final deadline set for 8 p.m. Eastern Time (8 a.m. Beijing Time on Wednesday).

Ahead of Trump's deadline for Iran to reopen the Strait of Hormuz, the United States has already launched strikes against military targets on Kharg Island. An official stated that over 50 targets on the island were hit. Officials confirmed the strikes occurred early Tuesday Eastern Time and clarified that oil infrastructure was not targeted.

According to the latest reports, Trump declared that Iran's entire civilization would vanish tonight, never to be restored. He stated, "I do not wish for such an outcome, but it is highly probable. However, since we have achieved complete and total regime change, with a wiser, more mature new leadership in charge, perhaps something profoundly transformative will occur. Who knows? We will find out tonight; this is an extremely significant moment in the world's long and complex history."

Since the conflict escalated in late February, Trump has repeatedly issued stern warnings to Iran. On some occasions, he has followed through on his threats; on others, the rhetoric has proven empty.

Given the divergent positions between the U.S. and Iran, coupled with Tehran's distrust of Trump, negotiators anticipate that Iran will not concede to Trump's demands. The Iranian public is also bracing for a potential further deterioration of the situation.

Looking at historical precedents, the situation could unfold according to one of three possible scenarios before the ultimatum expires:

Maintaining the Status Quo This appears to be the least likely scenario. Having built up the tension to this degree, backing down now would cause Trump to lose his negotiating leverage.

On Monday, Trump mentioned he was exploring a "concept" for charging tolls to vessels passing through the Strait of Hormuz, which could be seen as preparing an alternative exit strategy.

Reviewing his past tactics, such as imposing tariffs, he has rarely set a deadline only to let it pass without consequence. That said, the scale of military action Trump has proposed represents an extreme escalation, and it remains unclear whether the U.S. military and intelligence communities have finalized specific operational plans.

"Reaching a Deal" or "Resuming Negotiations" Trump might publicly announce that negotiators are making progress or that a limited agreement has been reached. This would allow him to either withdraw the threat of military strikes or postpone it for another five to ten days—a delaying tactic that contributed to the current ultimatum.

Several nations are actively mediating to achieve this outcome. Trump hinted on Monday that parties are engaged in back-and-forth bargaining, potentially a precursor to a deal, although he emphasized that Tehran's latest proposal falls "far short" of requirements.

Launching Military Strikes In an interview last Sunday, Trump complained that Iran consistently attempts to stall negotiations, engaging in prolonged discussions without committing to any agreements.

If he perceives that Iran is repeating this tactic, he is likely to swiftly authorize military action once the deadline passes. He could either initiate the full-scale attack he warned about or commence with a limited, escalatory strike aimed at exerting maximum pressure to force Iran back to the negotiating table.

Simultaneously, some Republicans have set their own deadline, stating that if military operations against Iran extend beyond 60 to 90 days, the president must seek congressional approval.

Trump himself recently acknowledged that, due to concerns about lacking congressional authorization, he has avoided using the word "war" when discussing Iran.

"I won't use the term 'war' because they say using that word might not be ideal," Trump stated during a National Republican Congressional Committee dinner on March 25. "They dislike the word 'war' because its use requires approval, so I will use the term 'military action,' which reflects its true nature."