In my piece “Donald Trump: The New UN – Trouble-Shooter and Peacemaker in Gaza and Uganda?” published in the Nile Post on 14th October 2025, I wrote:
“Blink for a fraction of a second longer, or get caught up scheming to profit from the 2026 general election, and you might miss the most important shift of our time: US President Donald Trump has, in effect, become a one-man United Nations Security Council. He now uses deals and threats as his lingua franca to pursue world peace.”
Where is the evidence?
On 3 January 2026, the United States launched a military strike in Venezuela and captured Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro and his wife, Cilia Flores, also known as the Shakespearean ‘Lady Macbeth’ of Latin America.
In Uganda, we have our own Ladies Macbeth as well—those power-crazy women who are driving their hapless husbands to self-destruction, literally. That is a topic for another day.
Meanwhile, on February 28, 2026, Israel and the US launched joint missile strikes on Iran, obliterating its political, military, and religious leaders, including the formerly untouchable Supreme Leader Khamenei.
The one-man UN Security Council member, US President Donald Trump, has invited Iranians to take back their country.
Could Trump come for Museveni next, and invite Ugandans to take back their country, as some in the opposition have openly called him to do so? After all, the one thing Uganda has in common with Venezuela and Iran is oil—also known to the development fraternity as the ‘mineral curse’ or the paradox of plenty.
Instead of spurring economic and social development, oil and other minerals have brought unspeakable poverty, misery, and death in the neighbouring DR Congo, Libya, Iraq, and Nigeria, to mention but a few.
Granted, the United States Africa Command (USAFRICOM) maintains a hawk-like watch on Museveni and other African leaders from the sea, air, and space.
It is known in strategic studies as a ‘full-spectrum’ security system, integrating sea, air, space, and electromagnetic dominion to ensure US military superiority and freedom of action against competitors, especially China, Russia, and their friends in Africa.
But I do not see the US coming for Museveni simply because their interests in Uganda and the region are better protected in the organised chaos under Museveni than they would be under a government headed by the deeply divided opposition.
Consider the perennial African tribal wars and the attendant humanitarian and refugee crises, which are dividing Europe today more than Europe divided Africa at the 1884 Berlin Conference.
Let me elaborate. Over two million refugees who would be on their way to Europe are today hosted by Museveni in Uganda.
Besides, Museveni is significantly contributing to US-funded peace-making and peace-keeping missions in restive Somalia, South Sudan, and the Central African Republic, to mention but three. All these would be reversed if UPC, DP, FDC, NUP, and the Uganda People’s Front for Freedom—or a combination of them—were to take power in Uganda.
The tribal and personal scramble for lucrative posts in government would lead to a civil conflict that would make the 1994 genocide in Rwanda look like a paragon of peace and community cohesion.
In other words, just as the ‘Iron Dome’ around Tel Aviv and other Israeli cities protects them against Hamas and Iranian missiles, so the divided opposition are the impenetrable ‘anti-missile defence system’—a surface-to-air missile that destroys in-flight any US ballistic missiles before they reach Museveni in Rwakitura or the State House at Entebbe.
Opposition followers are self-deluded if they are waiting for their leaders to cause Museveni’s downfall, with or without US air strikes. The US prefers Museveni.
I rest my case. Please exercise your right to reply.
