The resemblance between Abdel Fattah el-Sisi's assumption of power in Egypt and General Khalifa Haftar's war against Islamists opens up the space for looking into the cause for the armed conflict in Libya. Upon announcing Operation Dignity and declaring the war on terror, the parallel between the Libyan situation and the Egyptian struggle for power can be discerned on multiple levels. In Egypt, presidential elections following the collapse of the dictatorship led to the arrival of the Muslim Brotherhood to power. This was soon followed by seizing control by the military through overthrowing the Brotherhood's regime under the guise of fulfilling the aspirations of the public. Sisi gained support by employing a number of images favourable to the public, at times presenting himself as the new Nasser while declaring his antagonism to the Muslim Brotherhood. A similar progression is underway in Libya. General Khalifa Haftar is leading an operation to eliminate what he brands as "terrorists" and gain control over areas of Islamist influence in Benghazi and Tripoli. The targeted groups include a coalition of Ansar al-Sharia, 17 February Martyrs Brigades, and others, all of which having strict Islamist inclinations. Just as Sisi had suspended the Egyptian constitution and deposed former president Morsi, Haftar stormed the General National Congress (GNC) in Tripoli and announced its resolution. Like Sisi, Haftar counted on the presence of popular anti-Islamist sentiments in Benghazi in order to launch his operation. But the parallel stops here. Unlike the situation in Egypt, Haftar appears to have failed in gaining control over areas where Islamist groups dominate. Most recently, al-Saiqa Forces, which are special forces allied with Haftar and deployed in Benghazi, have been forced out of the city after being targeted by heavy missile strikes by Ansar al-Sharia. Battles in Tripoli also do not suggest a near victory for Haftar's forces, where clashes between Zintan and Misrata militias continue for the control of Tripoli international airport. Whereas Haftar has formed alliances with the Zintanis, Misrata militias maintain their Islamist affiliations. Haftar appears to have been unsuccessful in achieving a swift triumph, and set the country on a path to civil war while diminishing stability. With the rise of violence in Libya, several nations have withdrawn their diplomats, while Tunisia has threatened to close its borders with Libya due to frequent terrorist attacks occurring within Tunisian territory near the border. Egyptian politics exemplify the success of counter-revolution. With the re-emergence of the dictator following the dissatisfying performance of an elected president, the state returns to the governance of the military through manipulative tactics that exploit public support. Yet the attempt to carry out a similar transformation in Libya fails due to the different nature of the struggle. Whereas the Egyptian military achieved its takeover through ensuring the allegiance of armed forces, Libyan politics exploded in armed conflict. The Libyan situation is reminiscent of the Yemeni crisis in the 60's, and accordingly, a recipe for civil war. Haftar's choice of a direct military confrontation with armed groups under the presence of regional support has already initiated a conflict that appears to be long lasting. Moreover, given the presence of sympathetic Islamist groups in the region, a "war on terror" in the absence of military dominance could transform Libya into a jihadist battlefield. It is important, however, not to reduce the conflict to a narrative of revolution and counter-revolution. In the background of the present battles, devious ideologies operate on the naïve consciousness of the public for the sake of deviating from the question of reforming Libyan politics. The promise of democracy that appeared three years ago has been shrouded by fear of the "other" within Libya. What first started as potential for political liberation has been engulfed by the war between power seekers.
