Analyst doubts impact of Berlin talks on Libya
Hafizoglu: time-wasting won't solve Libya's crisis
European powers are seeking to impose a form of guardianship over Libya's political process, according to Turkish political analyst Muhannad Hafizoglu , who has criticised what he described as superficial international engagement with the crisis.
Speaking to regional media, Hafizoglu argued that European initiatives often fall short of delivering concrete outcomes. 'What we see are lofty statements and media-friendly proposals with little real-world effect,' he said.
He expressed scepticism over the prospects of the upcoming Berlin conference, noting that past European efforts in Libya have frequently lacked substance and consistency. 'There's little to suggest this meeting will produce anything fundamentally new,' he added.
Hafizoglu maintained that a more effective path forward lies in closer coordination between Libya, Egypt, and Turkey, alongside the involvement of key Libyan stakeholders. He described this as the only viable framework for progress, given the current international climate.
Beyond that, he pointed to the complex involvement of major powers — including Russia and the United States — who remain active players in the Libyan file, but whose focus, he suggested, is currently diverted. 'With the escalating conflict between Iran and Israel dominating their attention, the bandwidth for resolving Libya's crisis is shrinking,' he observed.
Looking ahead, Hafizoglu predicted a period of inertia. 'From now until the end of the year, we're likely to hear more calls for elections, new committees, and procedural steps — largely symbolic, aimed at managing public sentiment rather than delivering change.'
'The coming months,' he said, 'will likely be marked by stagnation, as key players revert to delay tactics and temporary fixes, rather than meaningful political movement.'
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Libyan Express
4 hours 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?
Libyan Express
5 hours ago
- Libyan Express
Greece deploys warships near Libya
BY Libyan Express Jun 29, 2025 - 06:53 Updated: Jun 29, 2025 - 06:57 Greek Prime Minister Kyriakos Mitsotakis Greece has announced the deployment of three warships in the Eastern Mediterranean between Turkey and Libya, citing the need to control the flow of migrants coming from Libya, according to Turkish media outlet Zaman . Greek Prime Minister Kyriakos Mitsotakis stated at the recent European Union summit in Brussels that the deployment aims to enhance maritime border security and prevent human smuggling. He explained that the naval vessels will monitor and intercept boats operated by smugglers, compelling them to return near the Libyan coast. The move coincides with increased diplomatic tensions between Greece and Turkey following the European Council's rejection of the maritime memorandum of understanding (MoU) signed between Turkey and Libya. The European Council said the MoU violates the sovereign rights of a third country and does not conform to international maritime law, thus lacking legal effect for other states. Mohamed Al-Harari, head of the Land and Maritime Borders Committee at Libya's Foreign Ministry under the government of Prime Minister Abdul Hamid Dbeibeh, recently visited Athens to restart dialogue and welcomed the Greek Foreign Minister Giorgos Gerapetritis's intention to visit Libya for talks. He also noted that the suspension of negotiations between Tripoli and Athens indicates that Greece does not recognise the Libya-Turkey maritime agreement. On 25 June, Prime Minister Mitsotakis posted on his X (formerly Twitter) account that Greece is sending naval ships to Libyan waters with a clear message to smugglers: 'We are not a wild vineyard.' Meanwhile, Libya's House of Representatives is preparing to ratify the maritime agreement with Turkey after establishing a technical committee in early June. This agreement is viewed as conflicting with the maritime border delimitation accord between Egypt and Greece. The situation highlights ongoing challenges in the Eastern Mediterranean regarding migration, maritime boundaries, and regional relations. 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
a day ago
- Libyan Express
UN's Libya plans face sharp criticism
UN mission under fire amid political crisis The Libyan capital, Tripoli, is experiencing a growing wave of public frustration with the performance of the United Nations Support Mission in Libya (UNSMIL). Increasingly, citizens perceive the mission not as part of the solution but rather as a burden on the country's political process and stability. During a field survey, Libyan Express gathered opinions from several residents who expressed deep dissatisfaction with what they described as the mission's absence from the realities on the ground. They emphasised that the mission's presence has failed to bring any tangible improvements to Libya's political or economic conditions or to the daily lives of its people. This discontent coincided with protests held outside the UN mission's headquarters in Tripoli, where demonstrators raised slogans condemning what they described as the ongoing deterioration of the political and economic situation across Libya. The protesters demanded a reassessment of the mission's role and its withdrawal, accusing it of failing to provide real solutions. Citizen Ramadan Khaled stated that the mission is no longer a trustworthy party in political settlements, asserting that it has become part of the problem itself. He called for its removal, citing a lack of seriousness and commitment. Meanwhile, Ms Fawziya Ben Ali described the mission's activities as limited to formal meetings, dialogues, and overseas trips, with no real impact inside Libya. Researcher Dr Ibrahim Mohammed argued that the mission's efforts merely recycle old proposals that had been presented in previous years, lacking clear timelines or implementation mechanisms, which undermines its credibility. Additionally, some citizens accused the mission of executing foreign agendas that do not reflect Libyan aspirations but rather serve international interests detached from local realities. In related developments, the UN mission announced on 4 February the formation of an advisory committee composed of twenty Libyan experts in an effort to revive the political process. This initiative forms part of the mission's multi-track approach, which it submitted to the UN Security Council during its session on 16 December 2023. On 20 May, the mission revealed the committee's recommendations, stating that they represent Libyan advice intended to be considered in the next phases of the political process it facilitates. The goal is to build consensus, unify state institutions, and move forward toward elections. These efforts come amid a severe political crisis in Libya characterised by the existence of two rival governments. The first, led by Osama Hammad, is based in Benghazi and was appointed by the House of Representatives in early 2022; it controls the eastern regions and most of the south. The second is the Government of National Unity, headed by Abdul Hamid Dbeibeh, based in Tripoli, governing the western part of the country. Despite the mission's ongoing attempts to support the political process, popular trust remains low amid rising frustration and concerns that the UN's initiatives may amount to mere formalities without delivering real change.
