Since Donald Trump assumed the presidency of the United States, discussions and speculations about potential negotiations between Tehran and Washington have intensified. Such negotiations had previously taken place indirectly and led to the reaching of the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA). However, during his first term, Trump unilaterally withdrew from the agreement despite Iran\u2019s full compliance and imposed the harshest anti-Iranian sanctions under the so-called \u201cmaximum pressure\u201d campaign.<\/p>\n
In this regard, on Friday, February 7, in a meeting with the Air Force and Air Defense staff, the Leader of the Islamic Revolution emphasized the necessity of learning from two years of negotiations and compromises that led to no results.\u00a0<\/p>\n
Beyond the JCPOA, a historical review of US commitments and treaties with other countries shows that such negotiations are often futile and even harmful\u2014the 2003 US-Libya agreement being a prime example.<\/p>\n
The 2003 US-Libya Agreement: A Fateful Decision and American Betrayal<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n During the 1970s and 1980s, Libya\u2019s leader, Muammar Gaddafi, pursued nuclear, chemical, and missile programs to establish Libya as an independent power. However, US\u00a0support for armed groups and political interventions turned him into the West\u2019s primary adversary. In the 1990s, after facing severe sanctions and international isolation, Libya came under immense pressure and gradually moved toward negotiations with the West.<\/p>\n In 2003, Gaddafi decided to change Libya\u2019s policies, dismantling its weapons programs, especially its nuclear program. For the West\u2014particularly the US\u2014this was a major victory. This agreement was perceived as a turning point, marking the end of Western hostilities against Gaddafi and his government. For the US, it temporarily eliminated Libya as a military threat, leading to the gradual lifting of sanctions.<\/p>\n Gaddafi assumed that cooperating with the US would remove any Western threats, reintegrate Libya into the international community, and even foster economic development. In response, Washington announced the lifting of economic sanctions and resumed trade and diplomatic relations with Libya. At the time, it seemed that Libya was on a path toward modernization and cooperation with the West\u2014a prospect Gaddafi viewed as a success and a resolution to Libya\u2019s crises.<\/p>\n However, over time, shifting geopolitical dynamics and miscalculations about Gaddafi’s stability led the US to gradually abandon its commitments. With evolving crises and internal changes in US\u00a0 foreign policy, Western nations, particularly the US, broke their promises.<\/p>\n Eventually, in 2011, the US and its NATO allies intervened militarily, toppling Gaddafi and plunging Libya into civil war. Under the pretext of promoting democracy and freedom, NATO and the West provided diplomatic and military support to Gaddafi\u2019s opponents. This intervention dismantled Libya\u2019s central government, turning it into a fragmented nation overrun by armed militias, leading to the destruction of its infrastructure.<\/p>\n Gaddafi\u2019s fate was tragic\u2014after the collapse of his government, Libya became a battleground for various factions and insurgents. Gaddafi, who believed that abandoning his weapons programs would shield him from Western threats, was ultimately left without support. In 2011, he was brutally captured and killed following a massive military assault. His violent and humiliating death is regarded as one of the greatest diplomatic betrayals of modern times.<\/p>\n Ultimately, this agreement and subsequent betrayals not only led to Gaddafi\u2019s downfall but also turned Libya into a failed state, where ongoing civil wars, humanitarian crises, and economic collapse persist to this day.<\/p>\n Post-Gaddafi Libya: A Nation in Ruins<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n Since Gaddafi\u2019s fall in 2011, Libya has been trapped in chaos, civil war, and fragmentation. With the collapse of central authority, militias, insurgents, and terrorist groups like ISIL and al-Qaeda rapidly gained power. Once one of Africa\u2019s wealthiest nations, Libya has become one of the world\u2019s most unstable and unsafe countries in less than a decade.<\/p>\n A brutal civil war erupted between the UN-recognized Government of National Accord (GNA) and forces loyal to General Khalifa Haftar, who was backed by Egypt, Russia, and the UAE. The war devastated infrastructure, crippled Libya\u2019s oil industry, and triggered an economic crisis. According to UN reports, since 2011, over 20,000 people have been killed, and more than one million displaced.<\/p>\n Before Gaddafi\u2019s fall, Libya produced 1.6 million barrels of oil per day, but after the war, the oil production dropped drastically. The economic collapse led to rampant unemployment, currency devaluation, and a surge in human trafficking. Libya became a major hub for smuggling African migrants to Europe.<\/p>\n Lessons from Gaddafi\u2019s Mistake<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n One of the key takeaways from Libya\u2019s experience is that trusting major powers without securing real guarantees can lead to irreversible consequences. Gaddafi believed that abandoning his weapons programs would prevent foreign military intervention and foster better relations with the West. Instead, this left Libya vulnerable to external interference, leading to the rapid collapse of his government.<\/p>\n Libya\u2019s downfall illustrates that strategic military programs serve as deterrents. If a country easily surrenders its defensive capabilities, it becomes an easy target for regime change and foreign intervention. Gaddafi negotiated due to economic pressures and sanctions, but once he fulfilled his commitments, he realized that there were no real guarantees for his government\u2019s survival.<\/p>\n This case demonstrates that any nation entering negotiations must maintain its leverage to avoid suffering Libya\u2019s fate if circumstances change.<\/p>\n Furthermore, Libya\u2019s fate serves as a warning about how the West exploits disarmament as a strategic tool to weaken countries. Once Gaddafi dismantled Libya\u2019s defenses, the US and its allies no longer had any reason to uphold their commitments. When circumstances shifted, they easily abandoned Libya.<\/p>\n This shows that the countries that seek to negotiate to reduce international tensions must maintain their defense and deterrence structures to the extent that they have the ability to deal with and manage the crisis even if the other party violates the agreement.<\/p>\n Today, Libya and Gaddafi\u2019s fate stands as a cautioning story for other nations considering security agreements with the West. They must recognize that diplomatic guarantees alone are insufficient, and without military deterrence, any agreement can be a tool leading to deception and weakening.<\/p>\n Had Libya retained its weapons programs, it might have had a different fate.<\/p>\n MP\/6371748<\/p>\n<\/p><\/div>\n![\"How](\"https:\/\/en.hamsonews.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/02\/5368121.png\")
<\/p>\n![\"How](\"https:\/\/en.hamsonews.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/02\/5368123.png\")
<\/p>\n