A narrative of a military intervention, NATO’s role, the backing and cheerleading of academics and intellectuals, and the fate of the people who were supposed to be saved.
I still remember those days as clearly as a movie I’ve watched over and over. Everything was moving with unexpected speed. The revolution in Egypt had triumphed and public emotion was soaring; only a few weeks had passed since Hosni Mubarak’s fall. Cairo’s streets smelled of revolution, and on every corner of Tahrir Square you could see signs of an uprising against a dictator who had ruled for decades with full American support. Tunisia was still in the shock of the “Arab Spring,” a popular uprising against dictatorship; only two or three months had passed since Zine El Abidine Ben Ali fled. The world was holding its breath to see where the next wave would crash.
In that atmosphere, Libya suddenly emerged from the dark and filled newspaper pages. It was as if someone had flipped on the lights for a new script.
No one in those days could have predicted that, in less than a few weeks, Libya’s skies would burn under NATO missiles; but the signs were in the air from the very beginning.
In Paris, Nicolas Sarkozy’s financial scandal was slowly surfacing; the story of money he had taken from Gaddafi was making enough noise to derail his political future. Every day the papers ran new exposés, and public opinion was thirsty for a heroic narrative—one that could redirect attention and cover up the scandal.
At the same time, France and Italy’s role in Tunisia’s upheavals was under media scrutiny. European countries that had traded with Ben Ali and Gaddafi for years were now looking to rebrand themselves in a new regional environment that was becoming more unpredictable by the day.
In Libya, the protests that began in Benghazi at first looked like dozens of other urban disturbances across the Arab world: a group of dissatisfied citizens, some slogans, a bit of unrest. But it soon became clear this would not stay at that level. News spread in the media: “severe repression,” “massacre,” “humanitarian catastrophe,” “genocide,” “crimes against humanity.”
Everything was inflating at a strange speed; as if an invisible voice behind the curtain were shouting:
“It’s time to act!”
Around those same days, the familiar term “humanitarian intervention” was resurrected—a phrase that always smells of gunpowder but is wrapped in the foil of humanism. From London to Paris to Washington, the tone of politicians flipped overnight. Suddenly everyone spoke of “saving Libyan civilians,” precisely as their own political fortunes at home were under pressure, not least because of corruption.
And then—so quickly there was no time for analysis—it was the missiles’ turn; as if the world had been waiting for an opportunity to attack Libya and these small protests had arrived at just the right moment.
A war-drumming French philosopher—the media mockingly called him Paris’s “unofficial foreign minister”—suddenly raised the banner of “humanitarian intervention.” With great zeal he spoke of an “imminent massacre,” of the “defenseless people of Benghazi” supposedly on the brink of annihilation. He romanticized scattered protests in eastern Libya into a “heroic uprising against a dictator,” selling the world daily images of “freedom’s champions”—many of whom later turned out to be Al-Qaeda fighters, professional mercenaries, and extremist groups exploiting a power vacuum with armed operations and sabotage.
Strangely, the entire world’s heart suddenly ached for the people of Benghazi. From London to Paris, from Washington to Brussels, a single chorus declared, “If we don’t intervene, a humanitarian disaster will occur.” And they wrapped the intervention in a euphonious label:
“Responsibility to Protect”—R2P.
That charming, beguiling phrase that is always pulled out of a statesman’s drawer when a rain of bombs and missiles is about to fall on a people.
Now come with me from that time to today, and let me draw back the curtain and show you what has unfolded over the past two years in Gaza and Lebanon.
To those days and nights when, every single day and night, hundreds were massacred.
To the nights when Israel’s savage bombardments leveled Gaza City to the ground.
To reports that speak of more than a hundred thousand dead, hundreds of thousands wounded, and two million displaced.
In the face of this extraordinary catastrophe, where is that fascistic French philosopher—who once played angel-savior for Benghazi? Why is his tongue tied now? Why has he forgotten that something called “humanitarian intervention” exists? European governments and the United States apparently have also forgotten that, for years, they roiled the world under the banner of a “responsibility to protect.” At the United Nations, instead of a binding resolution against this vast crime, we see only silence and political games.
And where are those Iranian intellectuals and academics who, back then, wrote a letter in favor of U.S. military intervention in Libya and proudly signed their names? Why are they now silent in the face of all this blood, dispossession, and ruin? Why do none of them even dare to ask, “Whatever happened to R2P?” Why the silence? Why, when it comes to Gaza and the slaughter of innocents, do your tongues go numb and you forget the very “remedy” you prescribed for Libya?
Do you know what troubles me?
That if, tomorrow, a project like Libya’s is engineered for Iran—this time by enemies of the people with foreign backing—what will you academics say and do? Will you once again rally under the standard of “humanitarian intervention,” beating your chests beneath that banner?
Where do the signatories of the letter to Obama—who implored him then to order strikes and bombardment of Libya—stand today, and what position do they defend? And if tomorrow Iran’s turn comes, what message does your heavy silence today, in the face of the slaughter of innocents in Gaza and Lebanon, convey?
But before getting to those questions, we need to go back a bit—to those not-so-distant days when the world suddenly united against Gaddafi and the media spoke around the clock of “saving Libya.” We must see what happened in Libya, what position the world was in, and where this affair began that would doom a nation to such a bitter fate.
Libya Before the 2011 Uprising
A calm, wealthy country on a path of development—and a man the West could not tolerate
Before Benghazi’s name echoed in headlines around the world, Libya had been breathing in a rare calm in Africa for years. Contrary to the image Western media later crafted—an unruly, tribal land ruled by a “mad” leader—Libya under Gaddafi had become one of the wealthiest, safest, and most developed countries on the continent.
From 1969 to 2011, Gaddafi ruled without rival; but what distinguished this period was not only a closed political structure. It was a unique blend of social welfare, economic development, and anti-colonial ideology that set Libya apart from many countries in the region and even the world.
Welfare and Wealth: Oil, Free Education, Free Healthcare
In Gaddafi’s later decades, standards of living were such that many pro-Western Arab states couldn’t even dream of them:
– Completely free education and healthcare
– Extensive state subsidies
– Major public-works projects
– Indicators that put Libya among Africa’s top per-capita GDPs
One of the era’s greatest transformations was women’s educational revolution: before 1969, the overwhelming majority of Libyan women were illiterate. By the 2000s, over 90% of girls had access to primary and secondary schooling, and roughly 50–60% of university students were women. Women made up more than 30% of the urban workforce, and their presence in medicine, teaching, the civil service, and universities was prominent. Unlike in many Arab countries, women’s work was neither taboo nor confined to the home; economic independence for women was largely recognized.
Under Gaddafi, the minimum marriage age for girls was raised; polygamy was sharply restricted; divorce required a court order; and women had the right to work independently, travel without a husband’s permission, and hold property in their own name. Compared with Saudi Arabia, Sudan, Yemen, and even Egypt, Libya’s family law was markedly more progressive.
Yes, Libya had tribal structures, bureaucratic corruption, and authoritarianism—but for years it also had internal stability, social security, and real economic growth. Millions of African migrants came to Libya for work; the country that Western media painted as “Gaddafi’s hell” was, in reality, a haven of jobs and prosperity for Africans and even some in West Asia.
Gaddafi the Anti-Imperialist: Backer of Liberation Movements, a Nightmare for Israel and the U.S.
Decades before Western leaders posed for smiling photos with him, Gaddafi was a prominent figure in anti-colonial movements. He:
– Gave financial and military support to Palestinian organizations,
– Backed the African National Congress and anti-apartheid fighters,
– Supported Irish militants, Latin American guerrillas, Iranian revolutionaries against the Shah, and even European student movements,
– Spoke bluntly against the U.S. and Israel.
He was branded a “madman” not because of theatrical behavior, but because he refused to fall in line with the Western order. Long before the 2011 uprising, Western media had labored to craft a persona combining madness, despotism, irrationality, and danger. Beneath that propaganda lay a clear reality: to many in Africa and Palestine, Gaddafi symbolized resistance and solidarity against imperialism.
Calm Under Stability; Papered-Over Rifts
Despite all progress, Libya remained a land of tribes.
East versus West, Benghazi versus Tripoli; Cyrenaica’s clans and their long histories of rivalry and distrust. Gaddafi had managed to keep these rifts in check. For years, the country enjoyed a level of quiet and security rare in the Middle East. In truth, had Tunisia and Egypt not been set ablaze in 2011, Libya might not have followed. The spirit of protest came from the outside, not the inside.
The Protests Begin: When Tunisia’s and Egypt’s Sparks Reached Libya
As the Arab world was upended and Ben Ali and Mubarak fell, Libya—until the day before one of the region’s calmest states—suddenly awakened. The first flames rose in Benghazi, a city long suspicious of Tripoli. But unlike Tunisia and Egypt, Libya’s protests were different from the start: forces entered quickly that were adventurous, armed, and organized—disaffected tribes, Islamist militias, and, most notably, elements of Al-Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb, whose presence in operations was later documented in multiple sources. Within the first week, Libya’s protests moved beyond “popular gatherings” and morphed into an abrupt, violent civil war.
The State’s Response: An Iron Fist—but Not the “Genocide” the West Claimed
Gaddafi responded in his customary fashion; encircling Benghazi, security offensives, and harsh threats. Some in the West seized the moment and immediately labeled it the “beginning of genocide.” But later, UN documents made clear: there was no evidence of a plan to commit genocide or a massacre in Benghazi. The initial death tolls were consistent with a limited military clash.
But the world always understands the truth late—and wars always begin before facts can surface.
A Letter for a War: How “Humanitarian Intervention” Won the Signatures of Intellectuals*
While Benghazi burned and the West prepared to intervene, something else was unfolding behind the scenes—something rarely discussed: the famous letter by a group of academics and intellectuals to Barack Obama. A letter that, on its face, expressed concern for “protecting civilians,” but in practice was a direct call to start a war—a request that the United States not only get involved, but also lead NATO in a military assault on Libya.
The letter was penned precisely as the Obama administration hesitated—torn between the temptation to “save lives” and the nightmare of “another Iraq.” The letter’s authors—presenting themselves as tribunes of ethics, scholarship, and democracy—urged the president to set aside doubt, decide, and “save” Libya with military power.
More striking still: among the signatories were several Iranian names—figures whom the West then treated as credible analysts of Iran and “symbols of civil society.” Was the inclusion of Iranians accidental? No one can say for sure. But one cannot ignore the question: by adding Iranian names, did the letter’s organizers seek to create the impression that “Iran’s academic community also supports humanitarian intervention”? More importantly: was this an attempt to legitimate a model that could later be used against Iran itself?
What did the letter say? It opened in overtly moral tones, invoking Obama’s Cairo speech—the address in which he had promised support for “freedom, democracy, and human rights” in the Arab world. Citing the falls of Ben Ali and Mubarak, the signatories invited Obama to continue the same path in Libya and stand “on the right side of history.”
But the key part is where moral rhetoric switches to military prescriptions:
– Immediate establishment of a no-fly zone
– Complete destruction of Libya’s air force
– Recognition of the Benghazi-based opposition council
– Provision of military and logistical support
– Threatening Libyan officers with international prosecution
– Even electronic warfare against Gaddafi’s government
In essence, the letter laid out NATO’s operations plan before UNSCR 1973 was ever passed. And the West followed it to the letter.
Clinton’s Role: The Pressure That Sealed the Decision
Secretary of State Hillary Clinton was a staunch supporter of military action from the start. In Washington, many believed that Obama, facing a wave of moral, media, and academic pressure—plus Clinton’s insistence—had little choice but to consent. The academics’ letter, festooned with reputable names and signatures, provided exactly the pressure the White House needed to justify “humanitarian intervention.”
What was the result? The attack went ahead. Gaddafi was killed. Libya was not freed; it was broken apart. Years later, Obama himself admitted: “The biggest mistake of my presidency was intervening in Libya.”
But a big question remains for us Iranians: where do those Iranian academics and intellectuals who signed that letter stand today? I’ve never heard any of them express regret—even to Obama’s minimal extent—over their role in encouraging war and crime.
I ask Mr. Kazem Alamdari and his wife Ms. Nayereh Tohidi, Mr. Abbas Milani, Dr. Hossein Bashiriyeh, Majid Mohammadi, Nader Hashemi, and the rest: where do you stand today? How remorseful are you—if at all? Or do you still imagine that promoting war and destruction was a “humanitarian intervention,” and perhaps you would cheer such an intervention again?
Really, what happened? Today, when hundreds are wiped out daily under bombardment in Gaza; when cities are leveled; when over a hundred thousand have been killed and millions displaced—why do you and those who once defended “humanitarian intervention” now remain silent? Why, you who once implored Obama to strike Libya, will not even sign a simple statement condemning this genocide? Why, instead of condemning the aggressor and the perpetrator, do you blame the victims as terrorists and violent? Worse, why do you smear individuals and currents that oppose the genocide in Gaza and Lebanon as agents of Iran’s religious state, or as “axis of resistance” stooges?
More critically: if tomorrow a Libya-style project is floated “to support the people of Iran,” and that same French fascistic philosopher returns to the stage, launching a letter-writing campaign for “humanitarian intervention” to “save” Iranians—will we see your names on the list again? Will you reprise your roles as “ethics-driven intellectuals”? Will you once more open the door to “humanitarian intervention” which, in plain language, means foreign aggression and military meddling?
Leave those worries for a moment. Let’s return to those days: what was happening then, and how did some people set about drafting that letter—a letter written in the name of “rescue,” but in reality the starting gun for the destruction of a country and a people?
France, the U.S., and NATO Enter: A New Show Under the Name “Saving the People”
While some were busy drafting a “rescue” letter and canvassing warmongers for signatures, Bernard-Henri Lévy—the French war-drumming philosopher who fancied himself France’s unofficial foreign minister, a true harbinger of war and ruin—went to Benghazi, posed with rebels, and returned to pull France into war. Sarkozy, entangled in a scandal over Gaddafi’s money, was eager to whitewash his past. France became the first country to recognize the opposition council. The UN Security Council passed Resolution 1973: a no-fly zone and the mandate to “protect civilians by all necessary means.” Which meant: we will wage full-scale war—but call it “humanitarian intervention” and “saving humanity.”
NATO’s Assault: The End of Developed Libya, the Beginning of Ruined Libya
From March to October 2011, Libya’s skies burned under NATO fire. Airports, bases, armor, and command centers were destroyed one after another. NATO became, in effect, the rebels’ air force. In the end, Gaddafi—the man once a symbol of anti-colonialism—was killed brutally on a Sirte street. The videos of his death circled the globe; the West smiled and celebrated: “Libya is free.”
But what was freed were not the Libyan people—it was secessionists, human traffickers, militias, and ISIS fighters.
Libya After Gaddafi: A Land Where Freedom Was Not Born—It Was Ruined
Gaddafi was killed in October 2011, and the West, with a grin, called it “democracy’s victory.” The headlines read, “Libya is free,” but what was freed were forces long held in check by a strong central state: tribal militias, extremist Islamists, arms and human traffickers, mercenaries, and, most importantly, dormant branches of Al-Qaeda and later ISIS.
The moment of Gaddafi’s death was not the end of a media-crafted madman; it was the birth of outright anarchy and statelessness. A country that, despite political despotism, had order, security, and economic welfare, plunged into one of the deepest governance vacuums in modern history.
Collapse of the State—or the Unraveling of a Nation’s Fabric
From the first days after Tripoli fell, a bitter truth was evident: there were no institutions, organizations, or personalities capable of governing Libya. For four decades Gaddafi had centralized everything in himself: there was no real national army, scarcely a professional police; what existed were units personally loyal to him. The administrative apparatus functioned through tribal networks. When he fell, the Libyan state quite literally fell with him.
Within months, Libya became a giant map whose every patch was held by a different armed group. Tripoli, Benghazi, Misrata, Sabha—each fell into the hands of a militia or tribe.
Two Governments, Two Parliaments, Dozens of Mini-Armies
In the years that followed, after countless slaughters, the NATO-“liberated” Libya split into two large halves:
– Western Libya—Tripoli, backed by Turkey, Qatar, and Islamist groups. A government recognized by the UN, but with limited control.
– Eastern Libya—Benghazi, under General Khalifa Haftar, supported by Egypt, the UAE, France, and to some extent Russia.
Libya now had two governments, two parliaments, two central banks, and dozens of armies. The country that was supposed to be “saved” became a laboratory for proxy wars.
The Rise of ISIS: From the Heart of a Power Vacuum
In 2014–2015, as everything unraveled, ISIS seized its chance. In Sirte—Gaddafi’s hometown—ISIS raised its black flag. A country in which ISIS had never dreamed of planting its banner during Gaddafi’s rule now, thanks to French and American air raids and the pleading of academics for “humanitarian intervention” to rid Libya of Gaddafi, became ideal terrain for its “caliphate.” With a long coastline ideal for human trafficking, vast stockpiles of unsecured weapons, feeble governments, and a very young, angry, jobless population, Libya turned into a hub for training terrorism and extremist jihadist groups. Instead of becoming a model of “Arab democracy,” Libya became a logistical center for global terror.
Endless Civil War: Cities That Burned, People Forgotten
From 2012 to today, Libya has scarcely known a day of real calm: the Benghazi war, the Tripoli war, Haftar’s offensives, Turkish intervention, Emirati drone strikes, and France’s ambiguous role—posing for photos one day with Tripoli’s government and shipping arms to Haftar the next. City after city was destroyed. Benghazi became a ruin compared to Aleppo; tens of thousands were killed, hundreds of thousands displaced. And the world? The world stopped seeing Libya. The country that once dominated every broadcast fell off the map. The intellectuals, philosophers, politicians, writers, and poets—European and even Iranian—who had shed crocodile tears no longer had anything to say.
Perhaps the world was only enthralled by the day Gaddafi was killed—or by the demolition of a land that might once have served as a model for its neighbors?
Libya Today: Rich, Yet Poor
Today, despite abundant oil, Libya has one of the most chaotic and dysfunctional economies in the world. Systemic corruption, fuel smuggling, a war economy, foreign meddling, and the absence of a strong central state have left a country with vast oil reserves unable even to pay teachers and civil servants on time. Thousands of Libyan youths now risk their lives in rickety boats on the Mediterranean to flee the very country the West “saved” through “humanitarian intervention.”
The Big Question for Today’s Iran: Can This Script Be Repeated?
Looking at thirteen years of chaos in Libya, I ask myself: if the same “humanitarian intervention” formula that knocked Libya’s legs out from under it were ever proposed against Iran, who would again play the role of “rescuer academics”? Which countries would stand behind the scenes of this “intervention”? Which groups are poised on the ground to fill a power vacuum after a central collapse?
For us today, Libya is foremost a historical warning. Not because of Gaddafi, but because the world saw, before our very eyes, how a wealthy, secure, and stable country can, in only weeks and months, be turned into an endless battlefield—a land once among Africa’s richest, safest, and most developed.
A land many pro-Western Arab states could not even dream of: where education and healthcare were completely free, people lived in relative prosperity with extensive subsidies, mega-projects were underway, and per-capita income led Africa.
A country the Western media called “Gaddafi’s hell,” which was, in reality, a haven of jobs and welfare for Africans and even some in the Middle East.
Today, after thirteen years of destruction, civil war, de facto partition, the spread of terrorism, human trafficking, and the collapse of ordinary life, I have a blunt question for those Iranian academics and intellectuals who, with their signatures, asked Obama to give the order to attack: What exactly did that “humanitarian intervention” produce? Where do the people who were supposed to be saved live today—and in what hell?
Where is that promised democracy now?
Why did the “responsibility to protect” in practice become the responsibility for a country’s death and ruin—and why has not a single one of you been willing to accept even a shred of moral responsibility for it?
Today, each of us has the right to ask the letter’s signatories to confess, plainly and without hiding behind academic claims, to what extent they were complicit in legitimizing a historic catastrophe. But alas, what we see is not confession, not apology, not re-examination—only a heavy, self-righteous silence.
I fear these ladies and gentlemen have still learned nothing; that if, tomorrow, Iran enters an emergency, if streets ignite and crisis mounts, their fancy will once again turn to “humanitarian intervention”—and perhaps this time not by writing to the White House, but by flashing a green light to the very power that now strikes a pose as savior: Israel. They will write to Netanyahu and ask him to undertake a “humanitarian intervention,” to come and “save” us.
And the question remains unanswered: if Libya was the testing ground then, is Iran to be the next laboratory for the same failed prescription?
I ask these academics: are you still waiting to swing the wrecking ball through Iran?
Reza Fani Yazdi
December 7, 2025
The letter’s text in Persian and a selection of signatures
This letter was published on March 7, 2011 and was signed by 94 professors, researchers, and experts (mostly American, European, and Arab academics, plus several Iranians).
Letter
Dear Mr. President,
We, the undersigned, fully appreciate and applaud your concern that the United States must not rush again toward unilateralism in the Middle East—a course that in recent years has too frequently defined American foreign policy. We also remember clearly the firm commitment you expressed in Cairo on June 4, 2009, when you spoke of supporting efforts to expand democracy. In your “New Beginnings” address to the Arab and Muslim worlds, you said:
“I do have an unyielding belief that all people yearn for certain things: the ability to speak their minds and have a say in how they are governed; confidence in the rule of law and the equal administration of justice; a government that is transparent and doesn’t steal from the people; and the freedom to live as they choose. These are not just American ideals; they are human rights. And that is why we will support them everywhere.”
These remarks were warmly received across the region and were taken as a powerful signal that your administration would strongly support popular pro-democracy movements wherever they arose.
Over the past two months, the Arab world has been shaken by a broad and profound surge of popular demand for democracy. This demand has transcended class, ethnicity, and faith. The breadth and historic nature of this upsurge are of enormous significance. Two oppressive and corrupt regimes in Tunisia and Egypt have been removed from power, and now the regimes in Yemen and Libya are also being seriously challenged.
Although nonviolent popular movements were able to overthrow the regimes in Tunisia and Egypt, Libya has been different. The protests that began there on February 17 were, like those elsewhere in the region, peaceful. But Colonel Gaddafi’s regime quickly responded by deploying military force against defenseless civilians. Orders to the armed forces to use aircraft, attack helicopters, heavy machine guns, and similar weapons against protesters soon led large segments of Libya’s military to defect to the people. The regime’s subsequent use of mercenary forces against civilians has only increased the level of violence.
In response to calls for a U.S.-led no-fly zone over northern Libya, you have emphasized the need for regional and international backing. We believe that, given the recent unanimous vote of the Arab League, the multiple requests by regional governments, and the support of traditional U.S. allies such as France and the United Kingdom, sufficient legitimacy now exists for the swift implementation of a no-fly zone. We therefore urge you to assume a leadership role in halting the horrific violence perpetrated by Colonel Gaddafi’s forces and to undertake the following concrete steps immediately:
- In close coordination with America’s allies, NATO, and the United Nations, form a coalition to establish, as rapidly as possible, a no-fly zone for all Libyan military flights across the skies of northern Libya, and take any actions necessary to render Libya’s air force completely inoperable throughout the country.
- Together with France, recognize the Benghazi-based interim government as the only legitimate government of Libya.
- Immediately enter into talks with the interim government to determine how the United States and the international community can provide the humanitarian and military assistance that this legitimate government requires.
- Assist in operations to jam the military communications of Gaddafi’s forces.
- Issue a clear warning to all military officers and mercenaries supporting Gaddafi’s regime that participation in crimes against humanity will result in full prosecution under international law; and offer assurances of support to senior officers loyal to Gaddafi who choose to defect and join the people.
Mr. President, we are at a decisive moment in the struggle of Arab peoples for democracy. If the words you spoke in Cairo nearly two years ago are to have meaning, now is the time for you to exercise leadership in support of this great democratic surge. Libya’s crisis is the most urgent case at present, but people across the Arab world will judge your Cairo speech by your actions today. The support you promised in Cairo must be real and swift. This is not only to stand on the right side of history; in our view, it is vital to the long-term national interests of the United States as well.
Respectfully,
A number of Iranian signatories to this letter include:
Abbas Milani, Nayereh Tohidi, Kazem Alamdari, Hossein Bashiriyeh, Majid Mohammadi, Nader Hashemi, Arash Naraghi, and …
Regrettably, this letter so shameful that it can no longer be easily found on official sites with the full list of signatures, but it can still be located in some internet archives, including the following link:
https://myemail.constantcontact.com/Open-Letter-to-President-Obama-about-Libya—3-16-11.html?soid=1102084408196&aid=sHWAcCvydz0