The fallout from the immigration protests in Los Angeles that started this weekend will play out for a long while, far long than the protests–which are likely to continue and, maybe, change form in the next few days and nights. Partly, this is because those involved in the conflict are carrying different visions about what they want the demonstrations to do. I’m going to go through some of the different players, their interests, and their likely strategies–please correct me on whatever I get wrong:

At the most basic level, a demonstration is a show of political commitments and strength. Demonstrating opposition to the contours and conduct of Trump’s mass deportation is, by itself, a political act of consequence. Some have a dramatically different vision of immigration policy, and others just want a more basic support for legal process, but they all know what Trump is doing is wrong.

The spectacle of a demonstration is a signal to others that large numbers of people won’t sign onto the Trump agenda, and they may vote, campaign, and send money to strengthen their opposition. They want to stand up for the people taken into custody. In this vision, the demonstrations aren’t likely to affect policy in the short run, but may strengthen institutional resistance to mass deportation over time and underscore the horrors of the current process. Los Angeles police aren’t necessarily an obstacle, and local politicians are potential allies.

These protesters are likely to be very concerned with how the demonstrators come off to audiences elsewhere, and determined to present a broadly acceptable vision of themselves. They’re more likely to welcome American flags than Mexican flags. And they’ll emphasize non-violence, maybe even politeness.

This group was surely the largest share of this weekend’s demonstrators.

Some demonstrators have more ambitious aims: they want to raise the costs of implementing mass deportation for the Administration, or even bring down the government without elections. Local police are another obstacle, and disruption is the chief resource they have. They mean to cultivate support with demonstrated strength. They’re likely to be a small share of the demonstrators. Provoking police escalation and violence, even at risk to their own safety, is a demonstration of commitment, and the evils of authorities. They’re often called “radicals.”

Local politicians, including Mayor Bass and Governor Newsom, welcome the demonstrations and the support of the demonstrators as long as they are controllable. Opposition to the Trump Administration and support for the migrants echoes the arguments they’ve made and can provide a political resource for what they want to do. They’re going to attack Trump from the vantage point of “normal” politics, emphasizing civil liberties and the rule of law. To pull this off, they have an interest in supporting the less disruptive and confrontational protestors and marginalizing the “radicals.”

Meanwhile, Trump was very quick to call out the National Guard and alert the Marines, eager to throw gasoline on the first sparks of conflict. It’s possible he didn’t realize that his engagement in managing a demonstration in Los Angeles would energize the most radical protest factions, but everyone else did. Visible radicals throwing firecrackers, breaking windows, or writing on walls are exactly what this president wants. Trump is desperate to demonstrate his strength and commitment to deportation, and to take down his political opponents, showcasing their weakness, and unify and mobilize his supporters. He knows immigration is his best issue, and he wants to focus attention on his efforts and his enemies, rather than all of the other stupid stuff he’s involved in.

So, if the protests dissipate, Trump will claim credit, and if they accelerate, he’ll find justification for deploying increasing force. His course is clear.

Newsom and other local officials want to demonstrate support for the activists’ cause and almost all their efforts–but absolutely not the destruction of driverless cars and other acts of vandalism. It will be a hard line to walk. Filing a lawsuit is an action, to be sure, but it’s not likely to produce anything helpful for a very long time. Declaring all downtown protests an “unlawful assembly” is an understandable response, but it’s fraught with risk, shutting out the “peaceful” protesters and encouraging others to innovate.

So, the scary thing is that the Trump administration and some activists are likely to pour their efforts into dramatic demonstrations, each increasingly provoked, and Trump claiming control of the much better armed forces.

It’s not a recipe for peace.