A balanced, data-informed deep dive into Libya’s long-running conflict, the roles of Turkey, the UAE, Sudan, Israel and others, and the recent tragic air crash of Libya’s top general in Turkey.
Libya has been at the centre of regional and international attention since the fall of Muammar Gaddafi in 2011. What began as a domestic uprising quickly turned into a fragmented political and military struggle, and over time it drew in outside powers with varying aims and interests. The roots of this complexity lie in Libya’s strategic location, its vast oil reserves, and the lack of a stable central authority after decades of authoritarian rule.
After Gaddafi’s overthrow, Libya split into rival administrations mainly in east and west. The Tripoli-based Government of National Unity (GNU) is internationally recognised. In the east, Field Marshal Khalifa Haftar leads the Libyan National Army (LNA) and a rival administration with varying degrees of local control. These internal divides opened space for outside actors to intervene, often by backing one faction or another for political, economic, or security reasons.
Turkey became a key supporter of the Tripoli-based government. Ankara’s involvement became most prominent around 2019 and 2020 when it provided military equipment, drones, and troops to bolster the government’s position against Haftar’s offensive toward Tripoli. This was partly driven by Turkey’s desire to secure a strategic foothold in North Africa, balance regional rivals, and protect its economic interests, including maritime agreements in the eastern Mediterranean.
The United Arab Emirates, by contrast, has aligned more with Haftar’s eastern faction. Abu Dhabi views Haftar as a partner in countering Islamist political movements and limiting Turkish influence. Reports have linked the UAE to extensive arms transfers and support that bolstered Haftar’s forces during key offensives, even amid UN arms embargoes that have repeatedly been cited as violated by various parties.
Sudan’s role in the Libyan conflict illustrates the spillover between regional crises. Parts of Sudan’s Rapid Support Forces have operated in and around Libya, with a strategic airstrip in southeastern Libya used to transport arms and fighters. Data and imagery tracking cargo movements suggests ties between these flights and UAE-linked supply chains that helped sustain allied forces in Sudan’s own civil conflict.
Israel’s role in the Libyan conflict, while less direct, is part of broader geopolitical contestation in the region. Israel has not been a principal backer of military operations inside Libya, but it remains a force in regional calculations, particularly as Gulf states and others align or compete on issues tied to security and countering shared threats from non-state actors.
Beyond these states, other global actors have engaged at different times. Russia has pursued ties in Libya’s east, using mercenary and political channels to influence outcomes. European countries have varied in their approaches, balancing concerns about migration, energy, and security, with multilateral efforts aimed at negotiation and stability.
These alignments often reflect broader regional competition. Turkey and the UAE have been in a strategic rivalry across Mediterranean and Middle East theatres. While Turkey supported the Tripoli government with drones and forces, the UAE backed Haftar while also working diplomatically to legitimize his command internationally. At moments, tensions between these powers have echoed larger patterns seen elsewhere in the region.
Amid these entanglements, Sudan’s relations have been shaped by its own internal conflicts and alliances, with the Libya connection adding layers to an already unstable landscape. Sudanese fighters aligned with groups backed by the UAE or other partners have participated in clashes tied to both the Libyan fight and Sudan’s own civil war dynamics.
Within this broader canvas, the region’s stakes have revolved around access to Libya’s oil revenue, influence over migration routes into Europe, and the projection of power across North Africa and the Mediterranean. For many foreign governments, Libya offers an arena to secure strategic depth, counter rival influence, and shape post-Arab Spring order in ways that align with their own domestic or regional priorities.
Against this backdrop, the December 2025 fatal crash of Libya’s army chief of staff, General Mohammed Al-Haddad, and seven others near Ankara carries significance that goes beyond the tragic loss itself. The delegation had just concluded talks in Turkey focused on defense cooperation, illustrating the ongoing strategic relationship between Ankara and the Tripoli government. The crash occurred shortly after takeoff and preliminary reports suggest a technical malfunction. Investigators are examining black box data with Turkish and Libyan participation.
General Al-Haddad was a leading figure in efforts to unify Libya’s fragmented military under the GNU’s banner. His death has prompted condolences from a wide spectrum, including Haftar’s faction, indicating recognition of his role in national military structures even amid deep political divides. The UAE, which has supported Haftar’s side in the past, issued statements of solidarity with Libya following the crash, highlighting a moment of diplomatic alignment even among competing patrons.
Some analysts see this incident as a reminder of the interconnected nature of Libya’s internal and external dynamics. It underscores how foreign relationships are not just transactional but involve sustained institutional engagement. Turkey’s investigations and the collaborative approach with Libyan officials reflect shared interests in stability and safety, even as both states navigate shifting alliances and priorities.
What makes Libya’s situation distinct is that foreign interests shape not just military balances but political negotiations as well. The European Union and United Nations have repeatedly called for a comprehensive peace process, though progress has been slow and fragile. External backers have sometimes tempered support for military action when political dialogue gained traction, but they also have been quick to reassert interests when talks falter.
At the same time, humanitarian and civilian costs remain high. Years of fighting have displaced hundreds of thousands and disrupted Libya’s economy, particularly its oil sector which is central to national revenue. Oil production has fluctuated dramatically with blockades and fighting affecting output, deepening economic strain on communities already coping with insecurity.
Looking ahead, Libya’s trajectory will depend on how these foreign influences evolve alongside internal power negotiations. Regional diplomacy that brings major backers to support a unified political framework could reduce incentives for external competition and encourage a stable transition. Conversely, if external interests continue to diverge, Libya might remain a locus of contestation with periodic escalations tied to broader strategic rivalries.
In this complex environment, clear, unbiased understanding of who supports which faction, why they do so, and how incidents like the Ankara air crash intersect with these wider patterns matters not just for policy makers, but for the citizens of Libya and neighbouring regions alike. The conflict in Libya is a reminder that internal divisions are rarely isolated from the wider world, and that peace will likely require both local compromise and thoughtful, transparent international engagement.
.jpg)
0 Comments