In a recent interview with The Atlantic ’s Jeffrey Goldberg, U.S. President Barack Obama acknowledged the failures in Libya and pinpointed the (in)action of other involved parties, namely the British and French, as a reason why efforts to rejuvenate the country’s political structure failed following the 2011 intervention in the North African state.

Indeed, Obama indicated that the “very cheap” and “well executed” 2011 U.N.-mandated plan seemed to work as he noted: “We averted large-scale civilian casualties, we prevented what almost surely would have been a prolonged and bloody civil conflict,” he continues in the interview “...and despite all that, Libya is a mess.”

The U.S. President also acknowledged how “the degree of tribal division in Libya was greater than our analysts had expected,” and contributed to the mess. Both of these points characterize a grander misunderstanding of the Libyan quagmire.

It is no secret that, since the foundation of the state of Libya as we know it today (and even before that), divisions in the country have existed. Indeed, the tribal, regional and strategic alliances which exist in the country have always rejected being ruled under a homogenized structure, whether it be manufactured from within or without the country. This was the case during the Ottoman Empire, the Italian Occupation, the Italian Colony of Libya, the Allied Mandate rule (British and French), under King Idris al-Senussi and the former Muammar al-Gaddafi regime’s presence and rule over the country.

Indeed, during these different ‘eras of rule,’ the country has seen continued unrest, both violent and otherwise, as the different facets of Libyan society conveyed their opposing stances to one another. Gaddafi, for his part, managed these differences by ruling with an iron fist under his revolutionary Jamahiriya and attempts at reform ‘regimes.’ His downfall, however, came when the disparities between the different actors in Libya became too great as they rode the so-called ‘Arab Spring’ wave which hit the country in early 2011. His removal therefore simply removed the lid of the chaos which ensued.

The Obama Administration’s role in this, and the invested international community, is explicitly implicated as an enabler to the current unrest. Obama noted how the coalition’s “ability to have any kind of structure there that we could interact with and start training and start providing resources broke down very quickly.”

The problem was, the structure which was assumed to be there did not exist. Certainly not in the guise of a conventional state system. It is at this point that Obama seems to distance himself from the reconstruction efforts noting how the U.K.’s Prime Minister, David Cameron, was “distracted,” and the then French Prime Minister, Nicolas Sarkozy, was more concerned with blowing the “trumpet” of the air campaign. But this, yet again, shows how the American leader’s focus is far away from the underlying cause of the Libyan failure. That is, the continued lack of importance given to the fundamental differing interests among groups in Libya’s society.

Obama is not alone in this misunderstanding. The international community, in the guise of the U.N. ‘unity government’ epitomizes this point further. Indeed, whilst the U.N. had been formulating, proposing and effectively establishing the ‘unity government’ (now located in Tunisia), power brokers in Libya had and have continued to reject the ‘externally implemented government,’ including the existing two rivaling governments in the country (the GNC and HoR).

The result is, effectively three Libyan governments, each with differing and conflicting aims. It would be almost foolish to think that such an environment would not have been attractive to the likes of Daesh (ISIS) to establish a foothold in the country.

Indeed, Libya today is epitomized as having internal divisions and conflicts within the country between the GNC, HoR as well as other parties, militias and actors, with the presence of the terrorist Daesh organization added to the mix, and to pressurize the situation even more so, an externally implemented third U.N.-mandated unity government. The conceptual drivers of the ongoing unrest are no different to when Obama took the decision in 2011 to work with the coalition and remove Gaddafi.

But what is clear is that the lack of misunderstanding is still present. Therefore, if not enough credence is given to the complexity of Libyan society, and accounted for when attempting to end the conflict, then it may ultimately continue to be a hindrance rather than assistance to any form of peace in the country. What’s more, it is extremist organizations like Daesh that come out on top in all this.

Dr Amir M. Kamel is a Lecturer in Defense, Security and International Studies at King's College London. His research and interests lie in impact of the economy on politics, with a focus on foreign policies towards the Middle East.

(Newsweek)

The U.S. now believes that senior ISIS military commander Abu Omar al-Shishani, known as Omar the Chechen, has died from injuries sustained in a March 4 airstrike in northeast Syria.

American officials had earlier expressed caution about his status because they did not have concrete proof that he was killed in the attack.

A U.S. official told ABC News today that the U.S. has since determined that al-Shishani, who was originally from the country of Georgia, has died.

Last Friday, Col. Steve Warren, the U.S. military spokesman in Baghdad, told reporters that there had been one survivor from the March 4 airstrike.

Warren explained that there were 13 ISIS members at the location outside the town of al-Shaddadi that was struck by U.S. aircraft. “We know that 12 of them are dead and one of them managed to limp away,” said Warren. The U.S. official said today it has since been determined that the person who initially survived that strike was Omar the Chechen, whose birth name is Tarkhan Tayumurazovich Batirashvili.

A defense official said last Tuesday that the March 4 airstrike was conducted by "multiple waves of manned and unmanned U.S. aircraft." At the time, this official said an initial assessment determined that al-Shishani was "likely killed" in the attack, but urged caution as there was no definitive proof of his death.

The official noted that it was "unusual and noteworthy" that al-Shishani had traveled to the al-Shaddadi area from Raqqa.

"This was likely to bolster the sagging morale of ISIL fighters there, who have suffered a series of defeats by Syrian Democratic Forces as they moved from al-Hawl to al-Shaddadi,” said the official. The town of al-Shaddadi had recently been seized from ISIS by a group of Arab and Kurdish rebels supported by the U.S.

In a statement last Tuesday, Peter Cook, the Pentagon press secretary, characterized al-Shisani as the equivalent of ISIS's "Minister of War."

"He is an ISIL senior commander and Shura Council member based in ar-Raqqah, Syria, and was identified as a military commander in a public video distributed by ISIL. At the time of this strike, [al-Shishani] had been sent to al-Shaddadi to bolster ISIL fighters following a series of strategic defeats to local forces we are supporting, cutting off ISIL operations near the Syria-Iraq border."

CANBERRA, Australia (AP) — Iran's foreign minister said Tuesday that he had deliberately negotiated the wording of the latest United Nations resolution restraining his country's nuclear program to ensure that the test-firing of nuclear-capable Iranian missiles would be legal.

Mohammad Javad Zarif said in a speech at the Australian National University that Security Council Resolution 2231, which was adopted after the Iranian nuclear deal was signed last year, did not bar Iran from testing the type of nuclear-capable ballistic missiles that it launched last week.

"It doesn't call upon Iran not to test ballistic missiles, or ballistic missiles capable of delivering nuclear warheads ... it calls upon Iran not to test ballistic missiles that were 'designed' to be capable," Zarif said.

"That word took me about seven months to negotiate, so everybody knew what it meant," he said, referring to "designed."

Zarif added that under the international nuclear agreement that resulted in the lifting of U.N. sanctions, which he had also negotiated, Iran would never develop nuclear weapons.

Last Wednesday's missile test was aimed at demonstrating that Iran will push ahead with its ballistic program after scaling back its nuclear program under the deal reached last year with the U.S. and other world powers.

View gallery

Iran's Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif gives a speech Tuesday, March 15, 2016, in Canberra …

The United States called a Security Council meeting on Monday to protest the launches, which Secretary of State John Kerry called a violation of U.N. resolutions that "could invite additional sanctions."

Samantha Power, the U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, said after Monday's closed meeting that the ballistic missiles "were designed to be capable of delivering nuclear weapons," and called the launches "dangerous, destabilizing, and provocative."

But Russia's U.N. ambassador, Vitaly Churkin, told reporters that Moscow had no information that the missiles could carry nuclear weapons and that there was no violation of the resolution.

Zarif on Tuesday became the first Iranian foreign minister to visit Australia since 2002. He was welcomed by key Australian officials, including Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull.

Zarif had a detailed conversation with Australian Foreign Minister Julie Bishop about legal and technical issues surrounding last week's missile test.

View gallery

Iran's Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif gives a speech Tuesday, March 15, 2016, in Canberra …

Bishop did not express an opinion on whether the test had breached Resolution 2231.

"Having heard the foreign minister's explanation, it is Australia's position that should the U.N. Security Council wish to investigate this matter, then that would be the proper legal process for it to do so," Bishop said.

Power said that the missile test merits a response from the Security Council, but that Russia's contention that the launches did not violate Resolution 2231 all but rule out any council action.

Zarif, meanwhile, welcomed Russia's decision to begin withdrawing forces from Syria, where a fragile cease-fire is holding.

"The fact that Russia announced that it's withdrawing part of its forces indicates that they don't see an imminent need to resort to force in maintaining the cease-fire," Zarif said. "That in and of itself should be a positive sign. Now we have to wait and see."

The U.N. special envoy for Syria called Putin's announcement a "significant development." Staffan de Mistura said in a statement that his team hoped the Russian drawdown would have a "positive impact" on the negotiations aimed at finding a political solution to Syria's war and "a peaceful political transition in the country."

Putin announced the withdrawal of most of the Russian forces from Syria on Monday, just hours after de Mistura had reconvened indirect peace talks between representatives of Syrian President Bashar Assad's government and those of the so-called moderate opposition. After meeting with a government delegation on Monday, the U.N. envoy was to meet with opposition representatives on Tuesday.

Later Tuesday, Putin's spokesman Dmitry Peskov denied that Russia's decision was prompted by Kremlin's displeasure with the Syrian government's tough position in the negotiations — or that it was intended to put pressure on Assad.

Iranian Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif Zarif welcomed Russia's decision to begin withdrawing forces from Syria, saying it indicated that Moscow doesn't see an imminent need to use force for maintaining the cease-fire, which is fragile but holding.

"That in and of itself should be a positive sign. Now we have to wait and see," Zarif said during a visit to Australia.

SLIDESHOW – Russian airstrikes in Syria >>>

Russia's Defense Ministry said a group of Su-34 bombers was the first to depart on Tuesday, accompanied by a military transport aircraft. The planes would be making stops at airfields in Russia for refueling and technical checks since some of them are stationed more than 5,000 kilometers (3,100 miles) away from the Syria base, the ministry said.

Russian state television showed video of the three warplanes taking off and flying in formation behind a larger transport aircraft, and also reported that two more groups had subsequently set off for home. A later report showed the Su-34 pilots receiving a hero's welcome at an air base near the Russian city Voronezh.

Putin didn't specify how many aircraft and troops would be withdrawn. Russia has not revealed how many soldiers it has deployed to Syria, where it maintains a naval facility as well as an air base, but U.S. estimates of the number of Russian military personnel vary from 3,000 to 6,000.

Russia had deployed more than 50 jets and helicopters to its Hemeimeem air base, in Syria's coastal province of Latakia. The number of sorties had been drastically reduced since the cease-fire went into effect on Feb. 27.

Meanwhile, a Russian deputy defense minister said Russia would continue striking Islamic State militants and Syria's al-Qaida branch, known as the Nusra Front, as well as other militant factions that the U.N. Security Council has designated as terrorist organizations. The Syrian army has said it also would continue its operations against these groups "with the same tempo."

In this file photo taken on Tuesday, Oct. 20, 2015, Russian President Vladimir Putin, center, shakes hand with Syrian President Bashar Assad as Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov, right, looks on in the Kremlin in Moscow, Russia. (Druzhinin, RIA-Novosti, Kremlin Pool Photo via AP)

While the Russian air campaign had brought positive results, it was too early to speak about victory over terrorism and the Russian forces remaining in Syria "have the task of continuing to strike terrorist targets," Nikolai Pankov said during a ceremony at the Syria base honoring the departing Russian pilots.

The head of the defense committee in Russia's upper house of parliament, Viktor Ozerov, said Tuesday that he estimated about 1,000 Russian military personnel would remain in Syria at the two bases, the Interfax news agency reported.

Ozerov said Russia would need a minimum of two battalions, a total of 800 troops, to protect the two bases. In addition, Russia would continue to conduct air reconnaissance, requiring some of the plane crews to remain, and the military specialists advising the Syrian army also would stay, he said.

He said Russia would keep its long-range S-400 air defense missiles at the base. Russia deployed the powerful system in November after Turkey downed a Russian jet along the Syrian border.

The start of the negotiations in Switzerland on Monday offered Putin an opportune moment to declare an official end to the five-and-a-half-month Russian air campaign, which has allowed Assad's army to win back some key ground and strengthen his positions ahead of the talks.

Announcing his decision in a televised meeting with Russia's foreign and defense ministers, Putin said the Russian air campaign has allowed Assad's military to "radically" turn the tide of war and helped create conditions for peace talks.

With Russia's main goals in Syria achieved, the pullback will allow Putin to pose as a peacemaker and help ease tensions with NATO member Turkey and the Gulf monarchies vexed by Moscow's military action.

SLIDESHOW – Assad forces continue battle with Syrian rebels >>>

At the same time, Putin made it clear that Russia will maintain its air base and a naval facility in Syria and keep some troops there. Syria's state news agency also quoted Assad as saying that the Russian military will draw down its air force contingent but won't leave the country altogether.

The Syrian presidency said Assad and Putin spoke on the phone Monday and jointly agreed that Russia would scale back its forces in Syria. It rejected speculation that the decision reflected a rift between the allies and said the decision reflected the "successes" the two armies have achieved in fighting terrorism in Syria and restoring peace to key areas of the country.

___

Keaten reported from Geneva. Associated Press Writer Nataliya Vasilyeva in Moscow contributed to this report.

North Korean leader Kim Jong-Un has ordered an upcoming nuclear warhead test and multiple ballistic missile launches, escalating Pyongyang's face-off with the international community just days after being slapped with tough UN sanctions.

The order came after Kim monitored what was described as the successful simulated test of the warhead re-entry technology required for a long-range nuclear strike on the US mainland, the North's official KCNA news agency said Tuesday.

Military tensions have been soaring on the divided Korean peninsula since the North carried out its fourth nuclear test on January 6, followed a month later by a long-range rocket launch that was widely seen as a disguised ballistic missile test.

The UN Security Council responded earlier this month by imposing its toughest sanctions on North Korea to date.

Pyongyang, meanwhile, has maintained a daily barrage of nuclear strike threats against both Seoul and Washington, ostensibly over ongoing, large-scale South Korea-US military drills that the North sees as provocative rehearsals for invasion.

- Tests 'in a short time' -

View gallery

North Korean leader Kim Jong-Un (C) attends the KPA tank crew competition (AFP Photo/)

In order to boost the reliability of the nation's nuclear deterrent still further, Kim said a nuclear warhead explosion test and firings of "several kinds" of ballistic rockets would be carried out "in a short time".

"He instructed the relevant section to make pre-arrangement for them to the last detail," KCNA said.

The order came days after state media released photos of Kim posing with what was claimed to be a miniaturised nuclear warhead capable of fitting on a ballistic missile.

Meeting with her cabinet ministers on Tuesday, South Korean President Park Geun-Hye said North Korea's endless threats reflected a "sense of crisis" in Pyongyang at its increasing diplomatic and economic isolation.

"If North Korea continues its provocations and confrontation with the international community and does not walk the path of change, it will walk the path of self-destruction," Park said.

View gallery

Timeline of nuclear and missile developments in North Korea (AFP Photo/John Saeki, Adrian Leung)

While North Korea is known to have a small stockpile of nuclear weapons, its ability to deliver them accurately to a chosen target on the tip of a ballistic missile has been a subject of heated debate.

There are numerous question marks over the North's weapons delivery systems, with many experts believing it is still years from developing a working inter-continental ballistic missile (ICBM) that could strike the continental United States.

Tuesday's KCNA report was accompanied by photos of Kim personally monitoring a test simulating the intense heat a nuclear warhead would experience during atmospheric re-entry.

- Re-entry 'guarantee' -

Protected by "newly developed heat-resisting material" the warhead was reportedly subjected to thermal flows five times hotter than those associated with ICBM flight.

View gallery

North Korea's rocket launch of the earth observation satellite Kwangmyong 4, at an undisclosed l …

The test was a complete success, the agency said, and provided a "sure guarantee" of the warhead's ability to withstand re-entry -- a major step in the North's push towards a genuine ICBM nuclear strike capability.

South Korea's defence ministry said it was sceptical of the claim.

"According to our military analysis, North Korea has not yet secured re-entry technology," ministry spokesman Moon Sang-Gyun told reporters.

North Korea has never tested an ICBM, although it has displayed such a missile, known as the KN-08, during recent mass military parades in Pyongyang.

"It seems highly likely that North Korea is on the verge of conducting a long-range ballistic missile test, involving re-entry," said Chang Yong-Seok, a senior researcher at the Institute for Peace and Unification Studies at Seoul National University

"It wants to show that sanctions are not effective and to boost the credibility of its deterrent," Chang said.

Melissa Hanham, an expert on North Korea's WMD programme at the Middlebury Institute of International Studies in California, voiced concerns over just how far the North would go to "prove" its technical abilities.

China tested a medium-range ballistic missile with a 12-kiloton nuclear warhead in 1966, the only time a country has flight-tested a nuclear-tipped ballistic missile over populated areas.

"I don't know how North Korea's neighbours could distinguish testing a nuclear-tipped KN-08 from an attack. It would be very dangerous, very destabilising," Hanham said.

View Gallery