Since Donald Trump took over the US presidency, debate and speculation about potential negotiations between Tehran and Washington has intensified. Such negotiations have previously been indirectly leading to the arrival of a Joint Comprehensive Action Plan (JCPOA). However, during his first term, Trump unilaterally withdrew from the agreement despite full Iranian compliance, imposing the toughest anti-Iran sanctions under the so-called “maximum pressure” campaign.
In this regard, in a meeting with the Air Force and air defense staff on Friday, February 7th, leaders of the Islamic Revolution emphasized the need to learn from two years of negotiations and compromise.
Beyond the JCPOA, a historical review of US commitments and treaties with other countries shows that such negotiations are often futile and even harmful.
2003 US Libya Agreement: Fateful Decisions and Betrayal of America
In the 1970s and 1980s, Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi pursued nuclear, chemical and missile programs to establish Libya as an independent force. However, the US has transformed its support for armed groups and political intervention into a major Western enemy. In the 1990s, after facing serious sanctions and international isolation, Libya was subjected to immeasurable pressure and gradually moved to negotiations with the West.
In 2003, Gaddafi decided to change Libya’s policy and dismantle the arms programme, particularly the nuclear programme. This was a big victory in the West, especially in the US. The agreement was recognized as a turning point and marked the end of Western hostilities against Gaddafi and his government. For the United States, it temporarily eliminated Libya as a military threat, leading to the gradual lifting of sanctions.
Gaddafi hypothesized that by working with the US, it would remove the Western threat, reintegrate Libya into the international community, and promote economic development. In response, Washington announced the lifting of economic sanctions and resumed trade and diplomatic relations with Libya. At the time, Libya seemed to be on a path to modernization and cooperation with the West. Gadafi was seen as a success and resolution in Libya’s crisis.
Over time, however, the US gradually abandoned its commitment due to geopolitical dynamics and miscalculations regarding Gadafi’s stability. The evolving crisis and internal changes in US foreign policy have led the West, particularly the United States, to break their promises.
Eventually, in 2011, the US and its NATO allies intervened militarily, defeating Gaddafi and pushing Libya into the civil war. Under the pretext of promoting democracy and freedom, NATO and the West provided diplomatic and military support to Gaddafi’s enemies. This intervention dismantled Libyan central government and transformed into a state fragmented by armed militias, leading to the destruction of infrastructure.
Gaddafi’s fate was tragic. After his government collapsed, Libya became a battlefield for various factions and rebels. Gaddafi, who believed that abandoning the weapons program would protect him from Western threats, was ultimately left without assistance. In 2011 he was brutally captured and killed after a massive military attack. His violent and humiliating death is considered one of the greatest diplomatic betrayals of the present day.
Ultimately, this agreement and subsequent betrayal not only led to Gaddafi’s downfall, but also turned Libya into a failed state.
Post-Gaddafi Libya: Abandoned Country
Since the collapse of Gaddafi in 2011, Libya has been trapped in chaos, civil war and fragmentation. The collapse of central authorities has rapidly gained power for militias, rebels and terrorist groups like ISIL and al-Qaeda. Once one of Africa’s wealthiest countries, Libya has become one of the most unstable and unsafe countries in the world within a decade.
It exploded between the unrecognised government of the National Agreement (GNA), backed by Egypt, Russia and the United Arab Emirates, and troops loyal to General Khalifa Haftar. The war has devastated infrastructure, crippled Libyan oil industry, and caused an economic crisis. More than 20,000 people have been killed and more than 1 million have been displaced since 2011, according to a UN report.
Before Gaddafi collapsed, Libya produced 1.6 million barrels of oil per day, but oil production fell sharply after the war. The economic collapse has led to rampant unemployment, currency devaluation and a surge in human trafficking. Libya has become the main hub for smuggling African immigrants into Europe.
Lessons from Gaddafi’s mistakes
One important point from the Libyan experience is that trusting key forces without ensuring actual guarantees can lead to irreversible consequences. Gaddafi believed that abandoning the arms program would prevent foreign military intervention and promote better relations with the West. Instead, this made Libya vulnerable to external interference, leading to the rapid collapse of his government.
Libya’s downfall shows that strategic military programs act as deterrents. If the country simply abandons its defensive capabilities, it becomes a simple target for government change and foreign intervention. Gaddafi negotiated for economic pressure and sanctions, but once he fulfilled his commitment, he realized there was no real guarantee for the survival of the government.
The incident shows that if circumstances change, the negotiated country must maintain its leverage to avoid suffering from Libya’s fate.
Furthermore, Libya’s fate serves as a warning about how the West exploits disarming as a strategic tool to undermine the country. After Gaddafi dismantled Libyan defenses, the US and its allies had no reason to maintain their commitment anymore. When things changed, they easily abandoned Libya.
This will ensure that countries seeking to negotiate to reduce international tensions will maintain defence and deterrence structures as long as they have the ability to deal with and manage the crisis, even if other parties are violating the agreement. It indicates that it must.
Today, the fate of Libya and Gaddafi stands as a cautionary tale for other countries considering security agreements with the West. They must recognize that diplomatic guarantees alone are not enough, and without military deterrence any agreement can be a tool that leads to deception and weakening.
Had Libya held the weapons program, it could have had a different fate.
MP/6371748