Libyan raids herald bolder Arab action as U.S. role wavers

DUBAI Tue Aug 26, 2014 12:27pm EDT

Related Topics

DUBAI (Reuters) - Air strikes by Egypt and the United Arab Emirates on Libyan Islamists - as alleged by Washington despite denials from Cairo and the Gulf state - would mark an escalation of a regional struggle over the future of the Arab world.

If true, Arab responsibility for the attacks would also add to a picture of the West's regional allies acting increasingly independently in the absence of decisive U.S. involvement, seeking security goals with which Washington may not agree.

U.S. officials said on Monday that Egypt and the UAE, which has one of the most powerful air forces in the Middle East, had carried out a series of strikes on Islamist fighters in Tripoli.

European allies joined Washington in urging outsiders not to interfere in Libya, which is suffering its worst violence since the overthrow of Muammar Gaddafi in 2011.

Tripoli residents said last weekend that unidentified jets had attacked targets in the capital. There were also strikes on Islamist-held positions last Monday.

Egypt denied conducting air raids in the North African country, while UAE Minister of State for Foreign Affairs Anwar Gargash suggested on Twitter that the allegations had been promoted by anti-UAE Islamists.

Whoever carried out the raids, they were in tune with wider efforts by Egypt and conservative Sunni Muslim allies to roll back the influence of the Muslim Brotherhood - a regional Islamist movement - and its sponsor, Qatar.


Analysts noted that President Barack Obama, who last year called off air strikes on Syria at the last minute, has himself said U.S. allies in the region should play a greater role in tackling local crises.

"In the light of U.S. inaction in Syria, the message is clear, that you have to take care of your own concerns," said Emirati political scientist Abdulkhaleq Abdulla, stressing that he did not know for sure if the UAE was involved or not.

If the raids were indeed carried out by Egypt and the UAE, it would open a new chapter in inter-Arab relations, said Theodore Karasik, research director at Dubai think tank INEGMA.

"The feeling is that America hasn't stood up for its values and policies in the region," he said, referring to a common Arab view that the U.S. administration has been hesitant in supporting rebels fighting Syrian President Bashar al-Assad.

"So these states will now take it upon themselves to act. Ironically this is, in broad terms, what Washington has been asking them to do - solve their own problems."

The alleged use of outside military muscle touched a nerve in the West, acutely aware that its own intervention in Libya in the run-up to the fall of Gaddafi contributed to the country's descent into chaos.

In an indication of the sensitivity of the issue, the publication of their assertions was followed within hours by a joint statement by the United States and European allies cautioning against foreign interference.

Outside involvement would worsen divisions in Libya and slow progress in its political transition, it said.

And yet the West may have to get used to a more activist stance by participants in a tussle for influence pitting Egypt and most conservative Gulf Arab states against Islamist-friendly Qatar, Sudan and non-Arab Turkey and Iran.

A number of Arab powers have used a variety of tools in the past four years including armed force, aid, finance and diplomacy to shape events in Egypt, Yemen, Syria and Libya to their advantage.


"The important point here is that regional forces are taking their own path to supporting proxies," said Karasik. "This is the result of the region wanting to police itself without waiting for extra-regional decisions."

Abdulla said that if the UAE had taken part in the raid, it must have had "very compelling reasons to do so". If Libya became a failed state and an exporter of extremists then the stability of neighboring Egypt would be at risk, he added.

The world was busy with many other crises, and so action may have been needed to prevent extremists taking over, he said.

While policy differences between Washington and its Arab allies are nothing new, the propensity of some to go it alone in pursuing their aims is novel.

Egypt provides a clear example. Saudi Arabia was furious when veteran ruler Hosni Mubarak was toppled in 2011 and the Muslim Brotherhood, long mistrusted by Riyadh, later won power. Qatar helped to fund the elected Brotherhood government of President Mohamed Mursi, who was ousted by the army last year.

Riyadh and the UAE have since provided money to support Abdel Fattah al-Sisi, who as a general led the takeover and has since been elected president after suppressing the Brotherhood.

U.S. officials have looked askance at the heavy-handed political and security tactics of Sisi's authorities, which they believe have helped to polarize Egyptian society.

Sisi's men now fear that Islamists, if left to flourish in Libya's disorder, could lay the foundations for the return of the Brotherhood in Egypt one day.

For most Gulf Arabs, the Brotherhood is anathema because its ideology challenges the principle of conservative dynastic rule long followed in the Gulf.

Gulf Arab states take Egypt's stability seriously, regarding the Arab world's most populous nation as their chief regional ally in their confrontation with Shi'ite Muslim Iran.

Riyadh sees the Iranian administration as an expansionist power bent on exporting revolution to the Arab world and interfering in the affairs of neighboring Gulf states. Tehran denies any such interference.

(editing by David Stamp)

We welcome comments that advance the story through relevant opinion, anecdotes, links and data. If you see a comment that you believe is irrelevant or inappropriate, you can flag it to our editors by using the report abuse links. Views expressed in the comments do not represent those of Reuters. For more information on our comment policy, see
Comments (2)
Nikos_Retsos wrote:
U.S. role waivers in Libya? The former U.S. mercenary in Chad Khalifa Hiftar has been trying for 3 years to take over the Libyan government will full U.S. funding to buy off other Libyan militias.
He bought off the Zintan militia, and used with his own to dislodge the Misrata militia from Tripoli airport, but the Misratans prevailed.

When news of unidentified aircraft were bombing Hiftar’s opponents in the battle for control of Tripoli’s airport, I knew immediately that they were U.S. aircrafts from an off shore U.S. Aircraft Carrier. I published that opinion in my blog at The Telegraph, under the headline: (IRAQ: THE U.S. ATTACKS ISIS, OPENS 4th ONGOING U.S. WAR ON ISLAMISTS!) Egypt had denied any involvement immediately, and still denies it. Now the U.S. points the finger at the UAE, surely with U.A.E’s permission to cover its back, because the U.S. cannot admit that it uses the U.S. “air force” to support CIA mercenary Khalifa Hiftar to take control of Libya under a claims that he just wants to clean Libya from Islamists! That is the Libyans prerogative, not the U.S.!

Deniability is a highly used tool of the U.S. foreign policy where dirty tricks, or unethical and imperial U.S. involvement in the internal affairs of other states is involved. The Islamist Libyan militias are today what Mohammed Mossadegh was in Iran in 1953, and Khalifa Hiftar is today in Libya what Iranian General Fazlollah Zahedi who overthrew him in Iran was: CIA mercenaries on missions to overthrew legitimate authorities and take dictatorial control of their governments in order to exploit their rich oil resources. Nikos Retsos, retired professor, USA

Aug 26, 2014 2:12pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
speakfreely wrote:
So many splintered Islamist groups. The Arab/Muslim countries are best aware of the issues that their actions are less controversial than if a Western nation did the same things.

Aug 26, 2014 4:31pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
This discussion is now closed. We welcome comments on our articles for a limited period after their publication.

Full focus