#Libya Intervention

[tmarshconnors]

Wars, 0 trials. Enough said.

George H. W. Bush (1989-1993)

Gulf War (1990-1991): Also known as Operation Desert Storm, this conflict was a response to Iraq's invasion of Kuwait. A U.S.-led coalition drove Iraqi forces out of Kuwait.

Operation Just Cause (1989): The U.S. invasion of Panama aimed at deposing Panamanian leader Manuel Noriega.

Bill Clinton (1993-2001)

Bosnian War (1992-1995): The U.S. became involved in NATO-led operations in Bosnia and Herzegovina, including the enforcement of no-fly zones and airstrikes against Bosnian Serb forces. This culminated in the Dayton Agreement.

Kosovo War (1998-1999): NATO, led by the U.S., conducted a bombing campaign against Yugoslavia (Serbia and Montenegro) to stop human rights abuses against ethnic Albanians in Kosovo.

Operation Gothic Serpent (1993): This was part of the broader United Nations' intervention in Somalia, aiming to capture warlord Mohamed Farrah Aidid. It included the Battle of Mogadishu, famously known as "Black Hawk Down."

George W. Bush (2001-2009)

War in Afghanistan (2001-present): Initiated in response to the September 11 attacks, this war aimed to dismantle al-Qaeda and remove the Taliban from power.

Iraq War (2003-2011): Launched on the premise that Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction, this conflict led to the toppling of Saddam Hussein's regime.

War on Terror (2001-present): This is a broader term encompassing various military operations and initiatives aimed at combatting terrorism globally.

Barack Obama (2009-2017)

Continuation of the War in Afghanistan: Obama increased troop levels in Afghanistan in an attempt to stabilize the country, before beginning a drawdown of forces.

Iraq War and ISIS Conflict: While Obama ended the U.S. combat mission in Iraq in 2011, U.S. forces returned in 2014 to help combat ISIS (Islamic State of Iraq and Syria).

Libyan Civil War (2011): The U.S. participated in a NATO-led intervention that led to the overthrow of Muammar Gaddafi.

Operation Neptune Spear (2011): The mission that led to the killing of Osama bin Laden in Pakistan.

Interventions in Syria: The U.S. was involved in the Syrian Civil War, primarily through support of rebel groups and airstrikes against ISIS targets.

[mikhaila-bobersky]

If that don't work use more gun

[jessaerys]

rare putin w

[jloisse]

«Spoliation de l’Afrique»: pour détruire le dinar or, la France et l’OTAN ont détruit la Libye et Kadhafi

Le projet de dinar or de Kadhafi était une menace pour la France et les Etats-Unis, rappelle Moussa Ibrahim.

Et l'ex-porte-parole du dirigeant libyen de détailler:

«Quand Kadhafi a dit aux Français:"Mêlez-vous de vos affaires, c’est notre continent, c’est notre pétrole, nos banques, notre monnaie, nous voulons l'indépendance", c’était nuisible aux intérêts impérialistes de la France. »

[arinzeture]

The Unyielding Spirit of Pan-Africanism: Lumumba, Sankara, Gaddafi, and Nkrumah Live On

Juba Global News Network, May 27, 2025

Patrice Lumumba, Thomas Sankara, Muammar Gaddafi, and Kwame Nkrumah—four towering figures of Pan-Africanism whose lives were cut short by violence and betrayal, yet whose dreams of a united, self-reliant Africa endure. Though imperialist forces and their collaborators silenced their voices, they could not extinguish the soul of their vision: a continent free from neocolonial exploitation, united in purpose, and empowered to shape its own destiny. Their legacies continue to inspire Africans and the diaspora, a testament to the resilience of their Pan-African ideals.

Patrice Lumumba, the first Prime Minister of the Democratic Republic of Congo, was assassinated on January 17, 1961, at the age of 35, barely seven months after leading his nation to independence from Belgium. Lumumba’s vision of a sovereign Congo, free from Western exploitation of its vast mineral wealth, made him a target. His fiery speeches, calling for African unity and economic independence, alarmed colonial powers and their local allies. The CIA and Belgian authorities, fearing his influence, orchestrated his murder, with complicity from Congolese rivals. Lumumba’s body was dismembered and dissolved in acid, a brutal attempt to erase his legacy. Yet, “They killed Lumumba’s body, but his soul fuels Congo’s fight for true freedom.” His dream of a united Africa, unbowed by imperialism, continues to inspire activists demanding justice for Congo’s plundered resources.

Thomas Sankara, Burkina Faso’s “Che Guevara of Africa,” was gunned down on October 15, 1987, at 37, betrayed by his comrade Blaise Compaoré in a coup backed by France. As president from 1983 to 1987, Sankara transformed Burkina Faso through self-reliance, rejecting foreign aid, promoting local production, and empowering women. His Pan-Africanist vision rejected neocolonialism, famously declaring, “He who feeds you, controls you.” Sankara’s policies, including land reform and anti-corruption measures, threatened Western interests and local elites. His assassination, orchestrated with foreign complicity, aimed to bury his ideals. Yet, as a recent X post notes, “Sankara’s spirit lives in every African youth fighting for dignity.” His call for African unity and economic sovereignty resonates in movements across the continent.

Muammar Gaddafi, Libya’s leader from 1969 until his brutal killing on October 20, 2011, was a polarizing yet pivotal Pan-Africanist. Gaddafi envisioned a United States of Africa, advocating for a single currency, army, and government to counter Western dominance. He funded the African Union and supported liberation movements, earning both admiration and enmity. NATO’s 2011 intervention, backed by the U.S. and France, led to his lynching by rebels, a spectacle meant to crush his vision. Libya’s descent into chaos followed, exposing Western motives tied to oil and geopolitical control. “Gaddafi’s dream of African unity was his death sentence, but his ideas still haunt the imperialists.” His push for African self-reliance continues to inspire those resisting foreign interference.

Kwame Nkrumah, Ghana’s first president and a founding father of Pan-Africanism, was overthrown in a CIA-backed coup in 1966 and died in exile in 1972 at 62. Nkrumah’s vision of a united Africa, articulated in his book Africa Must Unite, laid the groundwork for the Organization of African Unity (now the African Union). He championed industrialization and economic independence, challenging Western exploitation. His ousting, supported by local elites and foreign powers, aimed to silence his call for continental solidarity. “Nkrumah’s soul lives in every African dreaming of unity.” His ideas continue to shape discussions on African integration and sovereignty.

Lumumba, Sankara, Gaddafi, and Nkrumah were targeted because their visions threatened the neocolonial order. Their killers—colonial powers, their proxies, and complicit African elites—sought to erase their influence, but the soul of Pan-Africanism endures. These leaders’ dreams of a united, self-sufficient Africa, free from exploitation, resonate in today’s struggles against foreign interference, from the CFA franc to resource plundering. Across social media, their names are invoked as rallying cries: “They killed your body, but your ideas are immortal.” Movements in Burkina Faso, Mali, and beyond, rejecting neocolonialism, echo their legacies, proving that while bodies can be destroyed, the spirit of Pan-Africanism remains indomitable.

Patrice Lumumba, Thomas Sankara, Muammar Gaddafi, and Kwame Nkrumah were murdered to suppress their vision of a united, liberated Africa. Yet, their ideas—rooted in sovereignty, unity, and resistance to exploitation—continue to inspire a new generation. From Congo’s fight for resource control to Burkina Faso’s push for self-reliance, their dreams live on, untouchable by those who sought to kill them. As Africa navigates modern challenges, the soul of these Pan-African giants remains a guiding light, urging the continent toward true independence.

[transmutationisms]

reading material for a global southerner for whom it's challenging to see through the overly embellished front of USAID because of misinformation, please.

sure, bear in mind this isn't a primary reading area for me & i wouldn't uncritically endorse every line of every one of these etc, but here is some writing i've found helpful

news / journalism:

The Myths of ‘Democracy Assistance’: U.S. Political Intervention in Post-Soviet Eastern Europe by Gerald Sussman (2006)

USAID: The Humanitarian Face of Colonial Exploitation by Amanda Yee (2023)

USAID: AN IMPERIALIST SNARE UNDER THE GUISE OF HUMANITARIAN AID by Ramona Wadi (2014)

Weaponizing aid: How USAID and the Global Fragility Act sustain U.S. imperialism in Libya by Tunde Osazua (2024)

The friendly face of US imperialism: USAID and Haiti by Sasha Kramer (2005)

US Foreign Aid Was Always About Furthering US Interests by Carlos Cruz Mosquera (2025)

academic publications:

Development, Security, and Aid: Geopolitics and Geoeconomics at the U.S. Agency for International Development by Jamey Essex (University of Georgia Press, 2013)

The Quiet Violence of Empire: How USAID Waged Counterinsurgency in Afghanistan by Wesley Attewell (University of Minnesota Press, 2023)

Killing with Kindness: Haiti, International Aid, and NGOs by Mark Schuller (Rutgers University Press, 2012)

[unsolicited-opinions]

I used to sorta' like Qasim. He's knowledgeable, and sharp- so this is particularly disappointing.

This is misleading on several levels.

"Iran has no nukes"

Technically correct, but deceptive.

Iran has enriched uranium to 60% purity, just short of weapons-grade (90%), and per the IAEA, has enough fissile material for several bombs if further enriched.

U.S. intelligence confirms Iran could build a bomb within weeks if it chose to.

"Iran never attacked the USA"

Straight up false.

Iran-backed proxies have killed over 600 U.S. troops in Iraq using advanced IEDs

Soleimani directly oversaw these militias. Iran also backed the 1983 Beirut bombing that killed 241 U.S. Marines.

"Iran offered to revive the deal"

Misleading. Iran demanded all sanctions be lifted before compliance, violating the JCPOA’s sequencing. Talks have stalled repeatedly over Iranian non-cooperation

"Iran allows full IAEA inspections"

False. Iran has denied access to key sites and disabled surveillance cameras since 2021.

"No approval from Congress"

True, but a legal gray area and common for presidents to do through broad Article II powers for such strikes.

Here's just the times Obama authorized strikes in/on sovereign nations without prior congressional approval:

1. Libya (2011)

Operation Odyssey Dawn / NATO Operation Unified Protector

Objective: Stop Gaddafi’s assault on civilians during the Arab Spring.

No Congressional approval; justified under humanitarian intervention and UN Resolution 1973.

Widely criticized for exceeding the 60-day limit of the War Powers Resolution.

2. Pakistan (2009–2016)

Drone strikes targeting al-Qaeda and Taliban operatives.

Conducted without the consent of Pakistan's Parliament or judiciary.

Not formally approved by Congress.

Included the 2011 raid that killed Osama bin Laden in Abbottabad.

3. Yemen (2009–2016)

Drone and airstrike campaign targeting AQAP (al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula).

No Congressional authorization for strikes inside Yemeni territory.

Often coordinated with Yemeni government, but with inconsistent legal clarity.

4. Somalia (2009–2016)

Airstrikes and special operations against al-Shabaab militants.

5. Syria (2014–2016)

No explicit AUMF covering Somalia.

Legal rationale extended from 2001 AUMF for al-Qaeda affiliates.

Airstrikes against ISIS beginning in September 2014.

No Congressional authorization specific to Syria.

Justified under the 2001 AUMF against al-Qaeda, even though ISIS had split from al-Qaeda.

Rashid's narrative collapses under scrutiny. It weaponizes moral outrage by omitting critical facts, flattening decades of Iranian aggression, and falsely portraying Trump’s controversial (but not unprecedented) strike as genocidal warfare.

Trump may well have been wrong, but this is a shit argument he knows is shit and is deliberately deceptive.

That makes this propaganda.

[psychotrenny]

The whole Bourdain quote about beating Kissinger to death rings very hollow when you remember that Bourdain was a straight up US State Department asset; "Henry Kissinger for people who drink craft beer". Like he spent most of his post 2006 career manufacturing consent for the US Imperialism, including for one of the most devastating interventions of the 21st century. Like you know that if Bourdain had been had been born a few decades earlier he would have gone on about how the beautiful people of South Vietnam are under threat from oppressive Northerners infiltrating from their border with the ineffectual regime running Cambodia. Like that Kissinger quote is an excellent example of how liberals will condemn every atrocity but the one currently happening. And to paraphrase that quote; once you've been Libya, you'll never stop wanting to beat Anthony Bourdain to death with your bare hands"

[worm-serious-talks]

You want to count the dead? Fine, let’s count the dead.

Once again, the right dusts off its old argument: “the victims of communism,” “the violence of the left,” “red dictatorships.” Always the same cynicism. As if human history wasn’t already drenched in blood… but blood spilled by capital.

So fine. You want to count the dead? Let’s count.

They throw the deaths of the USSR in our faces, as if that alone should shut down any discussion—without context, without analysis, without nuance. They bring up Latin American guerrillas, stripped of their historical roots: poverty, authoritarianism, the closure of democratic channels, brutal repression. They demonize those who rose up when democracy was either a sham or completely outlawed, and they exalt the executioners as heroes of “freedom.”

They blame us for the failures, mistakes, and authoritarianism of places like Venezuela or Cuba—but they stay silent about the decades-long economic blockade that chokes the island. They say nothing about the sanctions, interventions, coups, and sabotage. And when authoritarianism comes from a capitalist ally, suddenly it's no big deal. They don’t care about democracy—they care about preserving private property.

Want to count the dead? Let’s also count the ones from the U.S.-backed dictatorships in Latin America. The ones from Operation Condor, from state terrorism, from the Doctrine of National Security. The 30,000 disappeared in Argentina. The mass graves. The stolen babies.

The bombs dropped on Plaza de Mayo in 1955, killing over 300 people and injuring hundreds more. The massacres of workers: in Patagonia, during the Tragic Week, the executions at José León Suárez. Are we sweeping all that under the rug too?

Shall we count those murdered by the police in so-called democracies? The kids shot in the back in poor neighborhoods? The deaths in jails, police stations, and slums? The assassinations of labor, environmental, indigenous, and grassroots leaders?

Let’s go further. Let’s count the deaths caused by fascism—yes, fascism, that nationalist, racist, clerical, and profoundly anti-communist movement.

Let’s count the millions who died in wars for resources: Vietnam, Iraq, Syria, Libya. Wars launched by major powers, with millions of civilian casualties.

Let’s count the famines caused by colonial plunder, the silenced genocides in Africa, Asia, and the Middle East.

Let’s also include those who die from extractivism, systemic hunger, and healthcare systems that let people die if they can’t pay. Those capitalism kills without firing a single shot: through malnutrition, preventable diseases, eviction, and precarity.

Let’s not forget the victims of hate crimes: LGBTQ+ people, racialized communities, migrants.

The assassinated leftist and popular leaders: Salvador Allende, Che Guevara, Berta Cáceres, Martin Luther King Jr...

And the ethnic cleansing happening in plain sight today, in Palestine.

Now, let me be clear: I hate this macabre game of counting corpses. I don’t think it’s a valid argument. I don’t believe an idea —especially one born from the desire to build a less unjust world— should be dismissed based on the bloodshed in its history. Because human history itself is painted red. Because every form of power, every system, every attempt to change the world has come wrapped in conflict, mistakes, and tragedy.

But if you insist on playing this game, I won’t stay silent. And if we’re going to count the dead, then let’s count them all.

Because we are not the ones with the most to hide.

[starseedpatriot]

🇱🇾 USAID & NGOs were the Hidden Hand Behind Libya’s Destruction

For over four decades, Libya thrived under Gaddafi, but in 2011, the U.S., NATO, and Western-backed NGOs engineered an uprising, leading to his overthrow and Libya’s descent into chaos. USAID and its affiliated organizations played a critical role in financing, legitimizing, and facilitating the regime change operation.

How USAID & NGOs Helped Topple Gaddafi

USAID:

• 2011-2012, USAID funneled $75 million into “civil society” groups, opposition media, and transitional government structures.

• Funded the National Transitional Council (NTC), the de facto government after Gaddafi’s fall.

• Assisted in setting up opposition-run election commissions to ensure Libya remained under Western control post-regime change.

NED:

• Funded exile-run opposition media like Barada TV, which broadcast anti-Gaddafi propaganda from Washington, D.C.

• Provided grants to “civil society” groups that later funneled support to jihadists, including Free Syrian Army (FSA) members who later fought in Libya.

• Trained and promoted exiled opposition leaders who were later installed in Libya’s post-Gaddafi government.

OSF: Soros’s Role in Libya

• Pushed Western narratives on Libya, reinforcing media campaigns to justify NATO intervention.

• Funded opposition movements that aligned with U.S. geopolitical interests.

• Lobbied for mass migration policies in Europe, using Libya’s collapse to drive refugee influxes.

What did Libye lose?

Before 2011:

• Debt-free economy with $150 billion in foreign reserves.

• Free healthcare, education, and subsidized housing.

• One of Africa’s highest literacy rates at 87%.

• The Great Man-Made River Project provided sustainable water to the entire country.

• Oil wealth was distributed among the population.

After NATO & USAID Intervention:

• Libya became a failed state with rival militias battling for control.

• Open-air slave markets appeared, with migrants sold openly.

• Oil production collapsed, foreign corporations took over key sectors.

• ISIS and jihadist groups flourished.

• The country became a hub for weapons trafficking and human smuggling.

Gaddafi's Final Warning Before NATO Bombing in 2011?

“If Libya falls, chaos will take over North Africa, the Mediterranean will burn, and waves of migrants will flood Europe.”

Gaddafi knew what was coming. He was right.

The U.S. and its NGO network didn’t remove Gaddafi for “human rights.” They targeted him because he threatened Western financial dominance and refused to comply.

USAID used Libya as a practice round to hone their skills to be used in future campaigns:

Ukraine (2014): Funded Euromaidan protests → Led to civil war & U.S. economic control.

Syria (2011-2024): USAID financed the opposition → Led to over a decade of war.

Venezuela (2002-Present): Funded opposition coup attempts → Economic collapse under U.S. sanctions.

Georgia (2003/2023): Engineered “color revolutions” → Destabilized the country.

Libya, once Africa’s most prosperous nation, is now a shattered warzone. A direct result of U.S.-backed regime change funded directly by USAID.

🔴 @DDGeopolitics | Socials | Donate | Advertising

[theblasianwitch]

@creatingblackcharacters Is currently hosting an event for Black History Month. And I for one am so for it!!

Please have a look if you'd like to learn more about their challenge and participate

Not sure who to tag as I'm not sure how many people I know on here are artists or writers, but if you make things of any kind you can still participate. @crazycatsiren @thecomfywriter @venusrrvelez

For my contribution (the word feels wrong but my brain doesn't know what word to use at the moment): Szar Rei Ra, Jay Benu, Anthony Benu, Bora, Fiona Ra, and Xana.

In my series "Different Yet Same" I have many characters of varrying backgrounds. Everyone's background, upbringing, family history, and culture are as diverse as they are. I'm going to describe all of them, but put certain emphasis on one's I feel embody Black History and have something to offer in terms of being more culturally sensitive and understanding.

Szar Rei Ra is the main male character in my story. Without spoiling too much, he is a descendant of the Egyptian God Ra and has a heart for the people that was noticed and taken advantage of. Realizing and breaking away from that leads him into making a community of diverse individuals to help him with his role as an important figure for the future of the world on a whole.

Fiona Ra is Szar's older sister who was quite literally bound to the body and whims of a man via a curse placed by their older brother. She was released once the old patriarchal system was destroyed and is now trying to live life and use her divinity to help others while recovering from her trauma.

Jay and Anthony Benu are a married gay couple. Jay is from Libya and Anthony is from a secret society deep within West Africa. The creatures they are are based off of are from various African mythology but would be recognized, I hope, by my future readers from certain pop media of the 2000s where these creatures were white washed and Asian coated. The creatures they are heavily impact their outlook on life as Jay is more protective and pessimistic and Anthony is a symbol of life, prosperity and safety and is very optimistic. They serve as a hidden Easter egg to educate others on the origins and true nature of the creatures they are.

Bora is an intersex demi god who's upbringing led them to isolate themselves from society. In my second book they are forced to face the fact that they are one of the few gods on earth allowed to actually do anything for the people who have and still are suffering from the African Slave Trade and African Diaspora. The second book is very heavy on humanity suffering the consequences of their actions via divine intervention and having to come to terms with what they do and a need to change.

Xana is a North African bouda, a hyena shifter of African folklore and mythology, sometimes called a werehyena. Her story is part of the second book as well. Hyenas are a very female led and dominate species so her character and her people are used to show the determination and strength of Black women and just how much women do for society. Her people are one of the few matriarchal societies throughout the series.

I do hope people give my story the chance when it's first book is released in April. As a mixed race person who has suffered from all ends of my spectrum it serves to show just how connected we all are and to remind people of the humanity that exists within all of us. "There is nothing in this world that humanity hasn't done to another human." That is a quote that has stayed with me throughout my life as it is repeated quite a lot by my mother whenever injustice happens. World history, TRUE world history proves that and shows why so many people seem afraid of another set of people. Fear drives people more than anything, but we should not need to fear each other because we all bleed red; we all live on the same earth; we all are capable of the same emotions and therefore capable of both love and hate. All my life I've chosen love and only suffer from those who don't.

[whencyclopedia]

Italian Colonialism in Libya

One of the most coveted projects of Italian colonial policy was to secure an African colony in the Mediterranean. For this reason, Italy fought and won the Italo-Turkish war of 1911-1912 for the control of Tripolitania and Cyrenaica. These two possessions in Northern Africa were later unified in 1934 to form the colony of Libya, which remained under Italian control until 1943.

Tripolitania and Cyrenaica were characterised by continuous clashes between the Italians and Libyan resistance movements. The conflict lasted until 1932, when a ‘pacification’ campaign conducted during Benito Mussolini's (1883-1945) fascist rule violently repressed the rebellion.

The Diplomatic Preparation For Invasion

One of the long-term aims of Italy’s colonial plans was an expansion on the other shore of the Mediterranean. Italian appetites were first directed towards Tunisia, but in 1881 France imposed a protectorate there, frustrating Italian ambitions. The French move was perceived as a humiliation, hence it was often referred to as ‘the slap of Tunis’, and it diminished the possibilities of finding a suitable alternative for an Italian outpost in North Africa. Attention was, therefore, shifted towards Tripolitania, selected because it was one of the few places free from the control of other European powers and because it could constitute a strategically useful naval base in the Mediterranean. Tripolitania corresponds to the northern and coastal part of modern-day Libya but was then a semi-autonomous province (vilayet) of the Ottoman Empire (circa 1299 - 1922).

Ottoman suzerainty was more nominal than effective: between 1711 and 1835 the region was virtually independent under the rule of the local Karamanli dynasty. Even after the Ottomans had restored control in 1835, Tripolitania was under the influence of a political-religious fraternity called the Sanusiyya. This brotherhood was established in 1837 by Muhammad Ibn 'Ali Al-Senussi (1787-1859), an Algerian mystic who aimed to restore Islam to its early practice. Thanks to a successful integration within the Libyan tribal system, the Sanusiyya soon became an important centre of power, one that would later coordinate the resistance against the Italian invasion.

Returning to Italy, nationalistic press of the late-19th century emphasised the possibility of transforming Libya into a flourishing land for Italian emigrants, imagining the area as the future centre of trade across Africa. However, the Italian government was well aware that Libya had few natural resources - oil would only be discovered in 1955 - and a demographic colonisation would have been an arduous project. Moreover, at the time of the invasion, there were fewer than 1,000 Italians settled in Libya. Consequently, it was impossible to justify a war as a way to protect Italians abroad. As it was for Italian colonialism in Eritrea, the main justification was one of prestige and so Italy could sit at the table of the Great Power. The first military plans for an intervention in Libya came immediately after the ‘slap of Tunis’, then a tide of consequent events drove Italian action.

Nonetheless, it was fundamental to accompany the military preparation with diplomatic efforts to justify any Italian move on Libya. At the time, Italy was part of the Triple Alliance, together with the Austro-Hungarian Empire and the German Empire, who had been allies since 1879. This new military pact, another consequence of the ‘slap of Tunis’, was secured in 1882, and officially marked the end of a long period of friendship between the Kingdom of Italy and France. Even though the Italians received, in 1891, reassurances from their new allies regarding support for colonial claims, it was impossible to gain any progress in the Mediterranean without the consent of the true powers of the Mediterranean: France and Great Britain. Moreover, at the time Italy had to reassess its colonial policy after the defeat at Adwa in 1896 against the Ethiopian Empire, which blocked Italian expansionism in the Horn of Africa. The Mediterranean became, then, even more important for the Italian navy, due to the uncertainty of the situation in the Red Sea. France and Great Britain had already agreed on their respective areas of influence with the Anglo-French Convention of 1890. Therefore, Italy was forced to search for a rapprochement towards France and a series of diplomatic contacts culminated in the Italo-French agreement of 1901. This was followed by a similar Anglo-Italian agreement in 1902. This triangulation gave Italy a free hand in Tripolitania in exchange for Italian non-interference in any British interests in the Mediterranean and French claims in Morocco.

The international preparation was accompanied by a pervasive domestic policy. The topic of Libya was pushed by pro-colonialists and newspapers. The Banco di Roma, one of the main Italian banks, started to invest significantly in Tripolitania. To this must also be added the internal political calculations of the Prime Minister Giovanni Giolitti (1842-1928). One of the most important political leaders, Giolitti's tenure witnessed economic expansion and progressive social reforms, such as the introduction of universal male suffrage in 1912. In addition, he was politically unscrupulous and his trasformismo was noted, that is, the political art to create (too) flexible coalitions of government. Giolitti was also frequently associated with episodes of corruption. The war in Libya was one way to strengthen his government by seeking the support of the nationalists and the liberal conservatives.

Another important factor was the Ottoman Empire. In 1876, Abdul Hamid II (1842-1918) became sultan, paving the way for decades of absolutist rule. There was a broad opposition movement to the sultan, called the Young Turks, that was advocating for a constitution. Their revolution against the sultan in 1908 led to a period of restored parliamentary rule in the empire, but also brought internal instability and international weakness. In 1908, Bulgaria declared its independence from Ottoman rule, and the Austro-Hungarian Empire annexed Bosnia and Herzegovina, sharpening the tensions in the Balkans which became one of the major causes of WWI (1914-18).

Read More

⇒ Italian Colonialism in Libya

[dostoyevsky-official]

Retreat of Syrian Forces Threatens ‘Saigon Moment’ for Russia

Syria has partly been an ideological project for Putin. The intervention in Syria became a way for Russia to extend its vision of a multipolar world opposed to the Western liberal order, said Nicole Grajewski, fellow at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace and author of a coming book on Russia’s relationship with Iran, including in Syria. “To see Russian planes leave Syria as rebel forces move onward towards their air bases, and their assets in Damascus fall, this would be so devastating for the Russian image of itself,” she said. “It would be akin to a Saigon moment for them.” Putin’s assistance was instrumental to Assad’s survival, and showed Moscow’s allies far beyond the Middle East that Russian intervention could help push back popular uprisings, said a former Russian official. African leaders began to invite Russia, and specifically contractors from the Wagner paramilitary group who also played a critical role in Syria, to help stabilize their regimes.  Syria holds significant strategic value for Russia as well. The Khmeimim air base near the coastal city of Latakia serves as a logistical hub for flights to Libya, the Central African Republic, and Sudan, where Russian private contractors and soldiers have operated for years.  A naval base in the port city of Tartus serves as the only replenishment and repair point for the Russian navy in the Mediterranean, where it has brought in goods by bulk through the Black Sea. Tartus has granted Putin access to a warm water port, something Russian rulers for centuries before him sought in the Middle East. The port could also potentially connect Russia to Libya—like Syria, a Soviet-era ally—where it seeks a naval base to extend its reach into sub-Saharan Africa. A rebel takeover of those Syrian coastal positions could jeopardize Russia’s global-power projection. “Syria provided so many advantages at a low cost,” said Anna Borshchevskaya, senior fellow at the Washington Institute think tank and author of a book on Putin’s war in Syria. “Losing Syria would be a big strategic defeat that would reverberate beyond the Middle East. It would have global repercussions.”

[dreaminginthedeepsouth]

Waging war by tweet.

June 18, 2025

Robert B. Hubbell

The Framers of the Constitution understood that declaring war was a consequential decision that should not be entrusted to a single person. Accordingly, the Constitution grants Congress—not the president—the power to declare war. Under certain circumstances and for limited periods, the president can send the US military into conflict under an “authorization for the use of military force” that has been pre-approved by Congress in the form of a joint resolution.

On Tuesday, the American public and Congress learned that Trump has apparently committed US troops to the conflict between Israel and Iran. In seventy-two hours, the US position on the conflict has gone from “We are not involved” to Trump posting on Truth Social that

“[W]e now have complete and total control of the skies over Iran . . . .” [W]e know exactly where [Iran’s supreme leader] is. [But] we are not going to take him out (kill!), at least for now.” Iran must agree to “UNCONDITIONAL SURRENDER!”

For further details, see NYTimes, Trump Calls for Iran’s ‘Unconditional Surrender’ and Threatens Its Supreme Leader (Accessible to all.)

Seizing control of another nation’s sovereign airspace, suggesting the killing of its supreme political leader, and demanding “unconditional surrender” amounts to waging war.

JD Vance posted on social media that Trump was considering destroying Iran’s uranium enrichment capability, an action that could be accomplished only by the US dropping “bunker busting” bombs on Iran. JD Vance claimed that Trump had the unilateral authority to decide whether to attack another country. Vance wrote,

That decision [to attack Iran] ultimately belongs to the president.

Wrong. The decision to declare war belongs to Congress. Attacking another country to destroy its ability to build nuclear weapons and to kill its political leader is waging war.

Assuming for discussion that it is appropriate for the US to attack Iran and kill its political leader, the Constitution provides a clear mechanism for authorizing the Commander-in-Chief to wage war. JD Vance’s claim that the decision to attack Iran “belongs to the president” ignores the Constitution—a tactic that is the standard operating procedure of the Trump administration.

In addition to Trump's tweets, there is other evidence that the US is currently engaged in supporting Israel’s military operations against Iran. See the following clip of Tucker Carlson interviewing Ted Cruz about the US military’s role in supporting Israel. YouTube, Tucker vs. Ted Cruz on War with Iran. (Although citing to Tucker Carlson is unusual for this newsletter, the interview clip is worth two minutes of your time—I promise.)

For every president other than Trump, any move by the president to involve US troops in armed conflict has led to howls of protest in Congress and the media. See, e.g., this article in Politico from April 5, 2011: GOPers oppose Libya intervention.

In 2011, Senate Republicans opposed President Obama’s air strikes on Libya, sponsoring a resolution that stated, in part,

The president does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the [United States].

Yet on Tuesday evening, most of the coverage of Trump's threats to bomb Iran is limited to breathless repetition of “Will he, or won’t he?” rather than, “The president does not have the power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack.”

Apart from the constitutional infirmities of Trump's unilateral actions against Iran, waging war by tweet is stupid, undisciplined, and dangerous. Attacking another nation and threatening to kill its leader is serious business that should be decided through sober discussion with civilian and military experts.

Trump consulted with none of those experts. Instead, he surprised them all by committing the US to an action that may risk the lives and safety of US soldiers and civilians across the globe.

There is a movement in Congress to force Trump to seek congressional authorization for any attack on Iran. See Time, Israel-Iran: U.S. Lawmakers Move to Limit Trump’s War Powers.

Per Time,

Reps. Thomas Massie (R-Ky.) and Ro Khanna (D-Calif.) introduced a war powers resolution on Tuesday that asserts the requirement of Congress’ approval if Trump wants to commit armed forces to military action in the region. Outspoken progressive Reps. Alexandra Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.) and Ilhan Omar (D-Minn.), replied “Signing on” to Massie’s post. They and 12 other Democrats are cosponsoring the bill, according to Massie’s office. Sen. Tim Kaine (D-Va.) introduced a companion war powers resolution in the upper chamber on Monday that would terminate the unauthorized use of U.S. armed forces against Iran, given that there has not been a declaration of war, which only Congress can issue.

In fairness, some (many?) Senators believe that the president has the authority for a single air strike on a country without seeking a declaration of war or congressional authorization of the use of military force. Why? Answer: Because, you know, back when the Constitution was enacted, there weren’t “air strikes” or “airplanes” or “missiles.” See Axios, Congress dodges preemptive confrontation with Trump over Iran. (The sarcasm is mine, but Axios does quote Senators who say that presidents get “one free airstrike.”)

Trump's reckless use of social media to wage war and circumvent the Constitution is another reason that concerned Americans must continue to protest his policies in widespread demonstrations across the nation on a regular basis. He will keep it up until his supporters in Congress fear the American electorate more than they fear Trump.

To be clear, I am not (a) defending Iran or its pursuit of nuclear weapons, or (b) commenting on Israel’s decision to attack Iran. I have addressed the unconstitutional actions of a rogue president who is conducting a war via social media rather than seeking congressional approval, as required by the Constitution. If attacking Iran’s nuclear processing facilities is the correct course of action, doing so within the parameters set forth by the Constitution will make us stronger, not weaker.

[Robert B. Hubbell Newsletter]

[realpersonfacts]

Perhaps the most predictable consequence of an Iran defeat is the acceleration of a global arms race, particularly around nuclear weapons. Iran, a relatively large and sophisticated regional actor, has attempted to deter attack by developing nuclear capabilities, apparently below the threshold of actual weapons for now. If that deterrent fails and Iran’s nuclear program is dismantled, the signal to other regimes will be unmistakable: the only way to ensure your sovereignty in a U.S.-Israeli-dominated world is through acquiring nuclear weapons or other weapons of mass destruction (WMD).

This logic has already played out, but to a far lesser extent. Libya gave up its WMD programs in 2003 only to see its regime violently overthrown. North Korea took the opposite path, developing a credible nuclear deterrent, and as a result has remained largely immune from foreign intervention. After Iran, more states will very likely pursue this path, viewing international treaties and inspections as traps rather than protections.

The risk is not just nuclear proliferation, but the normalization of preventive military action against non-nuclear states. The incentive structure becomes perverse: develop nuclear weapons quickly or risk regime change. The end result is a world more dangerous, more armed, and more unstable.

The Perils of a Victory over Iran (from June 17th 2025)

[athena5898]

(Quds) Cuba officially declared its intention to join South Africa's genocide case against the Israeli occupation in the International Court of Justice (ICJ).

"Cuba, invoking Article 63 of the Statute of the Court, filed in the Registry of the Court a declaration of intervention in the case concerning Application of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide in the Gaza Strip,” the court stated in a statement.

This move makes Cuba the eighth country joined South Africa's case in ICJ after Türkiye, Nicaragua, Colombia, Libya, Mexico, Palestine, and Spain.