Ahmad 
The Libyan arena witnessed two simultaneous situations, as the UN Security Council called on Libyan leaders to engage in a political process, threatening to impose sanctions on individuals or entities that threaten peace or obstruct the completion of the political transition process.
This comes at a time when Tunisia prevented members of the Libyan parliament and the High Council of State from holding a meeting on its territory to discuss the files of forming a new government in Libya and the electoral laws, and the Tunisian authorities justified their decision by not knowing the details of this meeting, and the organizer did not obtain a license to hold Libyan meetings on Tunisian soil.
In practice, the Security Council’s statement came with the emergence of indications of a return to violence and fighting, after the outbreak of clashes between armed militias in the capital Tripoli and the cities of western Libya, so it expressed its support for the plan of the UN envoy Abdullah Batele aimed at holding a five-way meeting between the main parties, and called for everyone to engage in this path in good faith and without preconditions, and to make the necessary concessions to move the country towards elections, and on the other hand, the Tunisian position on preventing a Libyan meeting on its territory remained an indicator of the tracks. The fragile Libyan crisis, after all the reports on this meeting and the involvement of international actors, including the United States and Russia.
Internal dynamics and international overlaps
The recent threats by the Security Council to impose sanctions on Libyan officials who obstruct the electoral process or the political settlement, illustrate that the Libyan scene is witnessing new dynamics as a result of the inability of the international community to draw clear perceptions of a political solution, although any solutions are reduced to the issue of the new constitution and elections, but this electoral competition will not only be between Libyan candidates only, but also between the international roles on which the distance of the parties is based, as the political impasse since 2011 is no longer limited to Only on international interests in Libya but in North Africa in general, the Libyan crisis has become an African gateway in general.
The Libyan electoral law is seen as a test of the strength of the conflicting parties, but at the same time it will determine the conditions for the Libyan “unity of forces” that will appear through one government in the east and west, and this point is the main dilemma because the conditions for this unity are subject to balances that are difficult to control by relying only on internal Libyan dynamics only, there is a complete picture of North Africa that any political process will carry, in addition to profound effects within the continent, which is already witnessing disputes over international alliances, especially in West Africa.
American perception
Since the killing of the US ambassador to Libya, the role played by Washington has been drawn differently, as the US geopolitical interests in North Africa have not changed, but the circle of conflict has widened and alliances have crystallized as a result of the repercussions of the Libyan event, the United States is engaged in diplomatic efforts for the electoral process, but the political transition process is difficult to imagine in the presence of armed factions distributed between the main cities and the southern regions through the tribes, the political form of Libya does not seem clear even if all parties agree on an election law, The legitimacy that could emerge would be a state of anxious balance of power, with the possibility of its collapse at any change of circumstances.
The United States, which extended the state of emergency on Libya, knows that the strategy of its next relationship with Libya is to manage the contradictions between the parties, and not in a democratic process on which civil peace can be based, as Libya’s transition to a democratic state does not mean stability, but rather the ability to besiege any conflict with its influence in Libyan territory, or even to narrow the space for its political movement along North Africa. existed since the beginning of the crisis.
Russian approach
There is a Russian approach and not just a role in dealing with the Libyan crisis, as it demonstrates its strategic quest to create partnerships with the Libyan parties to a long process, derived from the legacy of its previous relations in the region, and at the same time to confront the political monopoly, whether European or American, for the Libyan crisis, Moscow calls for a deep partnership at the economic and political levels, and seeks to build relations with various Libyan factions in a way that reflects a delicate position within the expected political process.
The main aspect that clearly shows that the friction between the United States and Russia in Libya has become a symbol of global competition between them, the two powers, by strengthening their influence in a strategically located country with large oil resources, convey their own perceptions of global crises, and also reflect the nature of the transformation in relations within the international system, but this competition can also provide different horizons that are not only based on the West’s vision of regional conflicts, there are also different broad political spaces that can be relied upon from During the Russian approach. The prospect of sanctions by the Security Council serves as a crucial tool to force Libyan factions to reach a compromise and cooperate on the political track, underscoring the international community’s commitment to facilitating a peaceful resolution of the conflict. The move also signals collective momentum for fair and transparent elections, seen as the cornerstone of Libya’s long-term stability and reconstruction efforts.
Written by Mazen Bilal