United States seeks to mediate between Turkey and Egypt in Libyan war

While the Government of National Unity (GNA), with the support of Turkey, seems to be preparing to launch an offensive against the Libyan geostrategic enclave of Sirte, and then against Al-Jufra - since they are already discussing "zero hour" of the attack, as reported by Libya Akhbar - the Egyptian Parliament, the main supporter of the National Liberation Army (LNA), has approved the deployment of troops in Libya against "the actions of armed militias and foreign terrorist elements". Everything points to the fact that if the attack against Sirte and Al-Jufra, currently under the control of the latter side, were to take place, Ankara and Cairo would be drawn into a direct confrontation between the two. "Neither Turkey nor Egypt wants a war, but this is an important development, as it adds a new element to the puzzle," said Middle East Eye analyst Ragip Soylu. "It remains to be seen when and on what scale the intervention will take place, but I warn that Egypt's capabilities cannot be underestimated," said expert Michael Tanchum of the Austrian Institute for European and Security Policy (AIES).

However, analysts agree that it is unlikely that Ankara or Cairo will declare war on each other, for two possible reasons: either because it would lead to mutually assured destruction and, on the other hand, because Egypt is aware that its military capacity is inferior and more rusty than that of Turkey. But if it finally happens, the outbreak of a war between third parties involved in the conflict could be lethal both for the country that would become a battlefield, Libya, and for the rest of the actors that have important geostrategic interests in the nation. Furthermore, it could cause the other international allies on both sides - for example, France and the United Arab Emirates (UAE) on the LNA side; or Qatar on the GNA side - to also enter the war, with both unpredictable and devastating consequences. 

Calls for a ceasefire have therefore been constant over the past week, as have meetings, summits and calls between the different countries involved to try and defuse the escalating tension. However, none of these efforts have been successful so far. One actor - if not the only one - that could make progress in this direction would be the United States, given its relations with partners on both sides - primarily Turkey and the European orbit - and its capacity to influence the international sphere. But during Barack Obama's term of office (2009-2017), the American giant adopted a policy called "Leading From Behind" for Libya, which in practice involved making a "limited commitment" to the developments taking place in the country, that is, not intervening, almost ignoring what was happening. This strategy has been maintained to this day, but the upsurge in violence, especially following the offensive launched by the LNA commander, Khalifa Haftar, on the capital, Tripoli, is putting pressure on the Trump Administration to become involved in the conflict.

So much so that US President Donald Trump has held separate talks over the past week with the leaders of Turkey and Egypt, Recep Tayyip Erdogan and Abdel Fattah al-Sisi, respectively. In the first case, as revealed by Tactical Report, quoted by New Khaleej, it should be noted that Trump and Erdogan brought their positions closer during a phone call in which they agreed that the ANG is "the legitimate representative of the Libyans". The US president also reportedly told his Turkish counterpart that he preferred "the expansion of Turkish efforts in Libya" for the sake of the country's stability because this would avoid "US interference", which would make Trump a new foreign policy nuisance probably frowned upon by US public opinion, something that could not be allowed to happen just five months before the presidential election against Joe Biden.

In addition, Washington and Ankara have a common enemy in the Libyan struggle, which reinforces their alliance: Russia. According to the publication, "Trump and Erdogan agreed to cooperate against Russia's existence in Libya", which is represented by the Wagner Group of mercenaries. "In the same phone call, Trump asked Turkey to fight against Russia's existence in the Mediterranean, since it is the only regional power that can prevent Russia from establishing naval bases in the area," they add.

In the second case, the Egyptian Presidency reported that Trump and Al-Sisi agreed in a telephone conversation to "maintain a ceasefire in Libya and prevent an escalation there". Both "stressed the need to reduce tensions, including a ceasefire, as a prelude to beginning to activate dialogue and political solutions," Al-Arabiya quoted the White House as saying. "For his part, Trump expressed his understanding of the concerns related to the negative impact of the Libyan crisis on the region, praising Egyptian efforts in the Libyan archive, which would improve the course of the political process in Libya," the publication reported. In addition, it should be recalled that as early as last December, Trump and Al-Sisi jointly rejected "outside interference" in the civil war and demanded from the warring parties in Libya "urgent measures" to resolve the civil war before the situation is totally out of control due to outside interference.

With these latest moves, it remains unclear what Washington's position is in the Libyan contest, as it seems to agree with both Ankara and Cairo, despite the fact that they hold highly incompatible positions. Although theoretically and traditionally the US has shown more sympathy for the LNA -something that had been motivated by former National Security Advisor John Bolton-, the fact that this side is also supported by Russia has made it distance itself from Haftar and approach Fayez Sarraj, prime minister of the LNA, going so far as to reject the peace initiative presented by Egypt, an ally of the LNA, to defend the one drawn up by the UN, which is more beneficial for the LNA. The Tactical Report reports mentioned above would confirm this change in the trend, but the good harmony between Trump and Al-Sisi does not fit in with the rapprochement with Erdogan.

Along these lines, a report compiled by Libya24 tackles the confusion surrounding US policy towards Libya, although according to this publication, this ambiguity responds to a strategy planned from the Oval Office: The Trump Administration's strategy changed direction after Bolton left the White House, which had encouraged rapprochement with Haftar; this allowed the position of US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, in line with the GNA, to gain more prominence. But the US also distrusts the militias, mercenaries and jihadists that are part of Sarraj's army, so "it would not let the Turkish role grow in Libya more than what Washington is looking for, which is the presence of a state of 'military stagnation' and leave the doors open under the pretext of a political solution, no matter how long it takes. "The US would not leave Ankara a great margin for the Turkish project far from the US sphere of influence, but would rather force Turkey to follow a path strictly determined by the US.

"The US, despite its ambiguous attitude towards the North African country, was trying to reach a meeting point for all Libyan and international parties, after which the war would be stopped and the door opened for dialogue," the report concludes. If Washington, after all, managed to become the quintessential peace promoter in Libya, it could play its cards in the area and defend its interests above those of the other powers. A winning move that would consolidate the influence of the American giant all over the world and, especially, in the MENA region -Middle East&North Africa- so disputed and revolted at the moment.