The scariest thing about Trump? Nothing he does can shock us any more
A trope of the Trump years is that a Hollywood scriptwriter would be laughed out of town for authoring such a madcap screenplay. America is in its final season, goes the joke, and the showrunners have completely jumped the shark. On this occasion, however, they would have been sent back to the writing room, and told to try harder. The personal insults. The threats of cancelled government contracts. Even Musk's taunt about the Jeffrey Epstein files felt cliched. I would not even have been surprised if either Trump or Musk had sought to monetise their row by launching a crypto coin in the shape of a broken heart. That is a measure of how, in the 10 years since Trump descended that golden escalator, the abnormal has been normalised.
The chaos in Los Angeles was also entirely foreseeable. A crackdown on protesters in a Democratic-run city in a Democratic-run state was always going to be an obvious Trump play. Better still, the faux flashpoint came when agents from US Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) tried to arrest and expel unauthorised immigrants. For Trump, the staging for this American passion play could hardly have been more perfect.
And what a dramatis personae and props. An African-American Democratic mayor, Karen Bass. A liberal Democratic governor, Gavin Newsom, with a surname that lends itself to the playground slur 'Newscum' which Trump rejoices in using. A Democratic US senator, Alex Padilla, being bundled out of a press conference and then handcuffed after trying to ask Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem a question. Protesters waving the national flag of Mexico. And a big beautiful battalion of federalised National Guard, under the president's command and control, with 700 US Marines standing by on the fringes of the city.
'Lights! Camera! Action!' A Hollywood summer blockbuster executive produced by the country's most powerful executive.
Nor should we overlook how the Democratic Party, and the Biden administration in particular, was crucial in the plot development. 'Democrats have gotten the border issue so wrong, for so long, that it amounts to political malpractice,' wrote W ashington Post columnist David Ignatius, a frequent Trump critic.
Loading
The Musk meltdown and Los Angeles showdown are, of course, linked. Trump, whose personal approval ratings have slumped sharply, needed a distraction after the breakdown of his billionaire bromance, and Musk's complaints that the 'One Big Beautiful Bill' would add $2.4 trillion to the deficit.
So Trump became the first US president since 1965 to federalise the National Guard without the agreement of a state governor. Back then, in one of the most climactic showdowns of the civil rights era, president Lyndon Johnson did so to protect black protesters marching between Montgomery and Selma, who had been bludgeoned by Alabama state troopers on 'Bloody Sunday'. Johnson's opponent was George Wallace, the white supremacist governor of Alabama, a 'Dixie' demagogue often viewed as a populist forerunner of Trump. Wallace would have applauded the president's announcement this week restoring the names of seven army bases which honoured Confederate leaders.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Libyan Express
3 days ago
- Libyan Express
Trump says Israel agrees to 60-day Gaza ceasefire
Copy Link US President Donald Trump announced on Tuesday that Israel has agreed to the terms of a proposed 60-day ceasefire in Gaza, urging Hamas to accept the deal or face harsher conditions. The announcement comes just days before Trump is set to host Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu at the White House, as the US intensifies efforts to end the war and secure a broader agreement involving hostages and humanitarian access. 'My representatives had a long and productive meeting with the Israelis today on Gaza,' Trump wrote on social media. 'Israel has agreed to the necessary conditions to finalise the 60-day CEASEFIRE, during which time we will work with all parties to end the war.' He added that Qatar and Egypt would deliver the final proposal to Hamas. 'I hope, for the good of the Middle East, that Hamas takes this deal, because it will not get better — IT WILL ONLY GET WORSE,' Trump warned. Israeli Minister for Strategic Affairs Ron Dermer held talks in Washington with Vice President JD Vance, Secretary of State Marco Rubio, and special envoy Steve Witkoff. The discussions reportedly covered the ceasefire, regional tensions, and Iran. The ceasefire push comes amid mounting humanitarian alarm. Over 150 aid organisations, including Oxfam, Save the Children, and Amnesty International, have demanded an end to a US- and Israeli-backed aid distribution mechanism in Gaza, citing chaos and deadly incidents. Witnesses said at least 10 Palestinians were killed while seeking food. At the same time, Israeli airstrikes killed at least 37 people in southern Gaza's Khan Younis, according to Nasser Hospital. 'Tents, tents—they are hitting with two missiles?' cried Um Seif Abu Leda, whose son was among the dead. Adding to the turmoil, projectiles were fired at Israel from both Gaza and Yemen. Israel's defence minister, Israel Katz, warned Yemen could face serious consequences after a missile was launched by Houthi rebels, marking the first such attack since a 12-day conflict between Israel and Iran. The Houthis vowed continued strikes until the Gaza siege is lifted. Netanyahu, addressing his Cabinet, did not elaborate on his Washington visit, but confirmed trade and Iran would be on the agenda. Trump is also reported to have helped mediate a recent ceasefire between Israel and Iran.
Libyan Express
3 days ago
- Libyan Express
Tunisian court jails lawyer Sonia Dahmani for criticising migrant policy
BY Libyan Express Jul 02, 2025 - 05:02 Lawyer Sonia Dahmani was sentenced to two years in prison under Tunisia's cybercrime law after criticising the government's stance on African migrants A Tunisian court on Monday sentenced prominent lawyer and government critic Sonia Dahmani to two years in prison over comments challenging the state's treatment of sub-Saharan migrants—raising alarm among rights groups about the deepening repression in the country. Dahmani's defence team withdrew from the courtroom after the judge refused their request to postpone the trial, accusing the court of trying her twice for the same offence. 'What's happening is a farce,' said her lawyer, Sami Ben Ghazi. 'Sonia is being punished for the same statement twice.' Fellow lawyer Bassem Trifi called the verdict 'a grave injustice'. Dahmani was arrested last year following remarks made during a televised debate, in which she criticised the Tunisian government's stance on undocumented African migrants. She was prosecuted under Decree 54, a controversial cybercrime law that has become a tool for silencing journalists, lawyers, and opposition figures. President Kais Saied has faced growing accusations of authoritarianism since seizing sweeping powers in 2021. He has repeatedly denied targeting critics, insisting his actions are lawful and aimed at ending corruption and restoring order. The views expressed in Op-Ed pieces are those of the author and do not purport to reflect the opinions or views of Libyan Express. How to submit an Op-Ed: Libyan Express accepts opinion articles on a wide range of topics. Submissions may be sent to oped@ Please include 'Op-Ed' in the subject line.
Libyan Express
6 days ago
- Libyan Express
Power, dominance and the fractured Middle East
Ahmed Mayouf, Libyan analyst, warns of the region's slide from influence to existential threat In the years following the incomplete revolutions of the Arab Spring, a fundamental reality has come into sharper focus: nearly every state, whether powerful or peripheral, seeks to assert hegemony—be it political, economic, cultural or military. This pursuit of influence is not confined to global superpowers. It is a defining feature of international relations today, shaped by a fluid global order where national interests increasingly override shared principles. While some states have resisted such efforts—either through internal cohesion between the people and their rulers, or through the endurance of institutional structures—external attempts at domination have continued. The erosion of the post-war international system and the decline of multilateral norms have only emboldened expansionist actors. In this shifting landscape, two powers—Iran and Israel—stand out as key architects of new regional dynamics. Each pursues a distinct project of influence, shaped by history, ideology, and hard power. Yet, the implications of their ambitions differ in scope and consequence. Iran: Ideology and strategic depth Since the 1979 revolution, Iran has pursued a long-term vision to shape the Middle East through a combination of ideological influence, strategic alliances, and calculated geopolitical manoeuvres. Ayatollah Khomeini's call for 'exporting the revolution' and 'awakening the Islamic world' signalled Tehran's intent to become the vanguard of a transnational Islamic resurgence. While this rhetoric was not explicitly aimed at dismantling nation-states, it did promote political independence from Western powers and a reimagined regional order grounded in Islamic unity. Over the decades, Iran has operationalised this vision by forging alliances with non-state actors and governments that share its opposition to Western dominance. From Hezbollah in Lebanon, to the Houthis in Yemen, to the Popular Mobilisation Forces in Iraq, and its enduring alliance with the Assad regime in Syria, Iran has developed a regional network of influence that has proven highly resilient. Iran's perception of threat has been equally influential in shaping its strategy. The presence of American military bases across the Gulf, alongside Israel's regional footprint, is viewed in Tehran as a direct challenge to its sovereignty and national security. In response, Iran has pursued 'strategic depth' by projecting power beyond its borders, establishing influence over neighbouring states, and controlling chokepoints such as the Strait of Hormuz—a vital artery through which 20% of the world's oil and gas flows. This geographical leverage has enhanced its bargaining power not only with regional actors but with global powers reliant on energy security. Yet Iran's ambitions are not pursued through outright occupation. Instead, it relies on ideological appeal, asymmetrical warfare, and proxy networks. Through this approach, it has carved a sphere of influence that extends from the Persian Gulf to the eastern Mediterranean—a formation often referred to as the 'Shia Crescent.' Despite some setbacks, particularly in Syria following shifts in the Assad regime's fortunes, Iran has succeeded in embedding itself within the region's political and security landscape. Israel: From survival to supremacy If Iran's project is ideological and defensive in origin, Israel's project is fundamentally existential and expansionist in trajectory. Since its creation in 1948, Israel has operated within a regional environment that questions its legitimacy. In response, it has adopted a posture grounded in security imperatives and strategic superiority. Over time, however, this has evolved into a more assertive quest for political normalisation, territorial consolidation, and demographic engineering. Israel's security doctrine, once centred on deterrence and survival, has expanded to include a range of political and ideological objectives. At the heart of these lies the ambition to be recognised not merely as a state, but as the nation-state of the Jewish people—a status formalised in the 2018 Jewish Nation-State Law. This law, passed by the Knesset, declared Israel as the exclusive national home of the Jewish people and downgraded the status of Arabic from an official language to one of 'special standing.' Though symbolic, it carries profound implications, entrenching legal inequalities and signalling a vision of the state that excludes its Arab citizens and Palestinians under occupation. This internal legislative shift is mirrored by an external diplomatic campaign. Over recent decades, Israel has succeeded in breaking Arab consensus on Palestine by normalising ties with key Arab states. From the Camp David Accords with Egypt, to the Wadi Araba Treaty with Jordan, and more recently the Abraham Accords with the UAE, Bahrain, Morocco, and Sudan, Israel has progressively dismantled the historical Arab front against normalisation. The strategic result is twofold: the marginalisation of the Palestinian cause and the legitimisation of Israeli regional leadership. Were it not for the Hamas-led attacks of 7 October 2023, more Arab states might have joined this path. Instead, the war on Gaza has crystallised a new phase in Israel's trajectory—one that moves beyond occupation to what many observers now describe as systematic ethnic cleansing, enabled by overwhelming Western support and in open defiance of international humanitarian law. A regional reckoning The current reality in Gaza, marked by mass displacement, destruction of infrastructure, and the collapse of humanitarian systems, represents more than a military campaign. It signals an Israeli strategy to permanently alter the demographics of Palestine, thereby resolving its so-called 'demographic dilemma' through force rather than negotiation. In this sense, Israel's hegemonic ambitions are not merely political—they are existential in their impact on others. The goal is not just influence, but erasure. In comparison, Iran's project—however destabilising—is rooted in strategic depth and deterrence. It seeks influence without necessarily dismantling states. Israel, on the other hand, is now engaged in reshaping borders, narratives, and entire populations. Its expansionist logic, some fear, aligns with earlier Zionist visions of a Greater Israel stretching 'from the Nile to the Euphrates.' This comparison is not meant to justify Iranian interference or downplay its impact. Iran's role in fuelling regional polarisation is real. But it does underscore the disparity in scope and intent. Where Iran seeks regional leverage, Israel appears to seek regional supremacy. Conclusion: The anatomy of hegemony Hegemony is not a static concept. It evolves with power, narrative, and opportunity. Many states, including Libya under Gaddafi, have sought regional influence, often projecting ideology or capital to assert leadership. Saudi Arabia exported Wahhabism; Qatar used the Muslim Brotherhood as a tool of soft power; the UAE has leveraged its economic might to counter revolutionary movements and reshape post-Arab Spring transitions. Yet none of these actors pose the same existential threat to the region as Israel currently does. Israel's project, bolstered by diplomatic cover, military superiority, and ideological conviction, aims not just at dominance—but at the displacement and elimination of a people. The forced demographic restructuring of Palestine, should it continue unchecked, could serve as a blueprint for similar campaigns elsewhere. If today Iran is the primary target of containment, tomorrow others may face the expansionist appetite of a state emboldened by impunity. The lessons of the Arab world's silence and complicity in the face of unfolding tragedy will not be forgotten. In the end, the region must ask: is it hegemony we fear—or annihilation we are failing to prevent?
