When rationality gives way to impulse, immediate political calculation, or the need for reaffirmation, risk ceases to be theoretical. The problem is not one of style, but of consequences. The unthinkable ceases to be impossible. And at this point, the problem is no longer the braggart. Faced with a more complex scenario than anticipated, the reaction is not strategic rectification, but the search for external support to contain a problem that he himself contributed to escalating. This is not about rhetoric. Applied to presidential power, that logic ceases to be an anomaly and becomes a threat. When this behavior is transferred to the conduct of the State, it ceases to be a personal trait and becomes a structural risk factor. In domestic politics, it erodes institutions, strains norms, and degrades debate. His power did not rest on reason, but on the absence of resistance. When exaggeration replaces evidence, when pressure displaces diplomacy, and when unpredictability becomes a deliberate tool, what is weakened is not just the credibility of a government, but the international containment mechanisms themselves. But all it took was for someone to respond for the tone to change, the risk to be measured, and support to be sought. In almost every school, there was one: the one who intimidated, provoked, and saw himself as an undisputed leader. In foreign policy, where balances are more fragile and errors more costly, it introduces a logic of confrontation without clear anchors. The calculation towards Iran illustrates that dynamic with precision. Altering its stability is not a tactical gesture; it is a decision with chain effects. It is the cost that everyone ends up paying for having underestimated it or applauded it. The author is a lawyer. As long as no one confronted him, his domain seemed unquestionable. Because at that level, limits are not respected: they are stretched, tested, and when the time comes, crossed. For decades, the international system has rested on certain unwritten taboos. And it is then that the logic of the braggart is exposed without nuances. What in the private sphere could be interpreted as aggressive negotiation, in the exercise of public power takes on a different dimension. The Strait of Hormuz is not a marginal point: a critical portion of the oil that sustains the global economy passes through it. But taboos are not self-executing norms; they depend on the rationality and restraint of those in power. It is about method. It is not about isolated episodes, but a consistent method: distortion of reality, sustained pressure, and the construction of narratives as instruments of advancement. When that balance is compromised, the consequences emerge rapidly: energy volatility, inflationary pressures, and economic tensions that transcend the directly involved actors. The same old braggart. That pattern, far from being anecdotal, today finds an unsettling expression in the political behavior of Donald Trump. Once I referred to the 'forward flight': advancing when control is lost, escalating when there are no exits. Among them, one essential: the non-use of nuclear weapons. Betting that pressure would be enough to quickly bend resistance and having underestimated the systemic impact of a crisis in the flow of hydrocarbons reveals a faulty diagnosis.
