Fifteen years since the uprising against Muammar Gaddafi in Libya began, and with civil strife leading to the downfall of what was once one of Africa’s wealthiest countries, several actors are seeking to end the civil war and reunite the country.
Among them are the US, which has commercial interests in Libya’s oil fields. Qatar, Egypt and Turkiye are also pushing for a return to “One Libya”, after more than a decade of fighting between two rival authorities for control of the country.
Recommended Stories
list of 4 itemsend of list
Here’s what we know:
US Department of State’s senior adviser to the president for Arab and African Affairs, Massad Fares Boulos, speaks in Doha, November 15, 2025 [AFP]
What happened 15 years ago?
The Libyan uprising erupted during the Arab Spring, when thousands of people in the port city of Benghazi took to the streets to protest against Gaddafi’s more than four decades of absolute power.
Violence against the demonstrations pushed the protesters into an armed rebellion against Gaddafi’s rule, with a civil war starting between the two sides.
A United Nations Security Council resolution authorised an international military intervention force – led by NATO members, the United States, United Kingdom and France – to enforce a no-fly zone and ensure the protection of civilians in Libya. This bombing campaign pushed back Gaddafi’s forces from Benghazi and aided the rebels in seizing territory.
Gaddafi was eventually captured and killed in October 2011, 42 years after he first seized power in a military coup that overthrew King Idris.
How is Libya divided?
Following Gaddafi’s death, a power vacuum emerged, with multiple groups – and their allied militias – competing for power.
Control of the country is now split between two rival administrations: the UN-recognised Government of National Unity (GNU) in Tripoli, led by Prime Minister Abdul Hamid Dheibah, and the eastern, Tobruk-based administration backed by Khalifa Haftar and his self-styled Libyan National Army (LNA).
The GNU is recognised by the UN and other countries, and officially has authority in the capital and western Libya.
Under Gaddafi, Haftar was exiled in the US for two decades where he holds citizenship.
His forces control vast resource-rich lands in the east, including the strategic port city of Benghazi, reportedly with the backing of Russia.
The UN began formal mediation efforts in 2020 under the UN Support Mission in Libya (UNSMIL). This roadmap advocates for a three-track strategy that includes unifying the two rival administrations, presidential and parliamentary elections, and hosting national dialogue meetings.
The US was a key mediator behind the scenes, and in May 2021, appointed Ambassador Richard Norlan as Special Envoy to Libya, to lead high-level talks between the two sides.
What is the US’s new plan?
Under Massad Boulous, US President Donald Trump’s African and Middle Eastern affairs adviser, and father-in-law to Tiffany Trump, Washington is intensifying efforts to reunite the country. But this can only be achieved if both sides agree to form a single government.
According to leaked details, Trump’s initiative centres on the promise that if the rival governments cooperate, the US would encourage American investment in Libya’s sizable oil fields. This comes as the Libyan Central Bank, which is attempting to finance both authorities, sounds the alarm over the dire economic situation.
While Tripoli has international legitimacy, Haftar’s forces control the oilfields and terminals.
The US is also proposing a power-sharing deal that would see Dheibah continue to lead the government while Haftar’s son and LNA army chief, 35-year-old Saddam Haftar, serves as president.
There are obvious opportunities for US energy companies and economic and political incentives for European countries in a unified and stable Libya.
They include stopping irregular migration from Libya and other North African countries to the EU.
Some criticise the US-led plan as lacking input from the Libyan people. The deal, some say, could entrench the power of political dynasties, which might be best for long-term stability in Libya.
Protesters in Tripoli against prolonged power cuts aimed at Libya’s National Oil Corporation, July 28, 2026, [Hamza Al Ahmar/Anadolu Agency]
What have the results been?
There are signs that Haftar’s camp, at least, is on board with the US plan. Saddam Haftar, whose father, Khalifa, was based in Virginia until 2011, reportedly met with US Secretary of State Marco Rubio in DC in July.
Experts attribute the ongoing mediation efforts to the unified national budget of 2026, signed in April – the first in more than a decade.
However, there are still no talks or signs of a unified government forming.
What is Turkiye’s role?
Turkiye, which earlier deployed troops to support the GNU, has also made efforts to mediate between the two sides and is pushing a ‘One Libya’ policy.
Last month, Foreign Affairs Minister, Hakan Fidan, met with Saddam Haftar in Ankara. Earlier this month, Fidan travelled to both Tripoli and Benghazi for high-level talks with Dheibah and Khalifa Haftar.
What has Egypt done?
The Egyptian government has traditionally cooperated with Haftar’s Tobruk government, which is just across the border.
On Wednesday, President Abdel Fattah el-Sisi met with Khalifa Haftar in Cairo and discussed unification talks.
Earlier this month, Dheibah visited Cairo, while Egyptian intelligence chief Hassan Rashad travelled to Tripoli.
What is Qatar’s stance?
Qatar has largely backed the UN mediation channels in Libya: the UNSMIL and the UN roadmap for peace.
While it has good relations with the GNU, Qatar seeks stabilisation efforts led by Libyan parties and elections.
In April, Qatar and other states welcomed the unified budget for 2026. A statement issued by Qatar, Egypt, France, Germany and several others called for all parties in Libya to follow the UN roadmap to “advance a Libyan-led political process leading to unified governance and national elections.”
Josh Widdicombe and Emma Willis have shown their public support for Johannes Radebe ahead of their debut as Strictly Come Dancing presenters by turning up at his West End show
The trio are set to host Strictly later this year(Image: josh_widdicombe/Instagram)
Josh Widdicombe and Emma Willis have shown their public support for Johannes Radebe ahead of their debut as Strictly Come Dancing presenters. It was announced earlier this year that comedian Josh, 43, along with former Big Brother host Emma, 50, and Strictly pro Johannes, 39, would be the new trio to head up the BBC Saturday night favourite in place of Claudia Winkleman and Tess Daly.
On Wednesday, Josh revealed that he and Emma had paid a visit to the London Coliseum where the show is running so they could see their co-star in action.
Alongside a picture of them backstage, along with X Factor winner Matt Cardle, who plays Charlie Price, Josh wrote on Instagram: “Incredible evening watching @johannesradebe absolutely smash the west end in Kinky Boots. Emma and I a bit too in love with him in the second pic.”
The trip were previously seen expressing their excitement for their new roles at a photoshoot for the BBC dancing competition, in a behind-the-scenes video posted to Strictly Come Dancing’s Instagram.
The announcement was a long time to come, and fans have waited almost a year to find out just who will step into the roles once held by Tess and Claudia. But following the first public appearance of the trio, several fans were left divided about what is to come, with some predicting that the lineup will change again after just one series.
One fan wrote on X, formerly known as Twitter: “I’m so sorry but even this photo backs up my theory that it’ll just be Emma + Johannes after 1 series. This is just so odd and you can’t keeeeep dancing like this!”
Another said: “I would have put Emma with Rylan, not sure about Josh or Johannes,” and a third, writing on Reddit, said: “producers were thoroughly surprised and impressed with Johannes during the screentest.
“I wouldn’t be surprised they added the 3rd host role specifically for him. If Josh doesn’t work out for them, they can slot Johannes right in that spot upstairs, with a year of experience under his belt. If it does all work out, they have 3 amazing hosts!”
Others had an optimistic outlook, with one viewer writing: “Good luck Josh, Emma and JoJo, looking forward to the new line-up!”
Another said: “Love Emma! Don’t know too much about Josh so will stay open minded before making judgements. I’m sort of gutted we won’t see Jojo with a partner, but I will love to watch him on my screen every week!!”
On election night, Santa Ana City Council member Jessie Lopez found herself in third place, far behind fellow Democratic council colleague David Penaloza and Republican business owner Mayra Ruiz in the race to represent Orange County’s 68th Assembly District.
Tearful supporters at a California Working Families Party shindig at the Mission Control bar and arcade in downtown Santa Ana hugged Lopez, gifted her flowers and wished her well.
If the 37-year-old was sad, she didn’t show it. Lopez had seen this game play out before.
In 2023, the councilmember decisively beat back a recall attempt funded by Santa Ana’s police union and apartment owners who didn’t like her unabashedly progressive views in a city where centrist Democrats have dominated politics for decades and lefty ones were long ostracized.
I wrote a column shortly after, heralding Lopez’s overwhelming victory as a new era for Latino politics in Orange County, where Latinos make up a third of the population but still wield little power.
Lopez spent the next three years along with her fellow progressive Santa Ana council members shoring up the city’s rent control policies and its immigrant defense fund. Nevertheless, few gave Lopez a chance in her assembly race.
Penaloza — who declined to vote when the council deadlocked on whether to cancel Lopez’s recall election — had the backing of the Orange County and California Democratic Party establishment, from current 68th District Assemblymember Avelino Valencia (who’s running to represent the 34th Senate District) to Assembly Speaker Robert Rivas to Katie Porter, a former Orange County congresswoman who ran unsuccessfully for governor this year.
Penaloza’s campaign mailers and video ads were so ubiquitous these past few weeks that they filled up my mailbox and interrupted my binging of Hulu’s “Vanderpump Villa.”
So did anti-Lopez mailers and commercials, funded by nearly $2.7 million in independent expenditures. Yet Lopez once again beat back her well-funded opposition.
As of Wednesday evening, the latest Orange County Registrar of Voters election results had her in second place — less than 1,000 votes away from Penaloza.
“Voters proved that while money can influence politics, it can’t buy community support,” Lopez said this week as she unsuccessfully tried to enjoy tacos and guacamole at Lola Gaspar in downtown Santa Ana, where well-wishers kept calling her or congratulating the candidate in person. “This race is about the future of California — whether we answer to corporations and insiders or to the hard-working people we’re elected to serve.”
With Orange County Supervisor Vicente Sarmiento easily winning reelection and Unite Here Local 11 co-president Ada Briceño currently coming up short in her bid to represent the 67th Assembly District, which includes parts of Los Angeles County, Lopez may be the sole O.C. Latino progressive running in November for a seat beyond the local level.
Expect Lopez versus Penaloza to become a referendum on whether the leftward trend of Latino voters in Orange County continues — or whether its center holds.
“I’ve chosen my side,” Lopez told me. “I’m proud to stand with working people.”
Then she excused herself — someone else wanted to say what’s up.
Insights
L.A. Times Insights delivers AI-generated analysis on Voices content to offer all points of view. Insights does not appear on any news articles.
The following AI-generated content is powered by Perplexity. The Los Angeles Times editorial staff does not create or edit the content.
Ideas expressed in the piece
The column portrays Jessie Lopez as a symbol of an emergent, unapologetically progressive Latino politics in Orange County, arguing that this movement is challenging decades of centrist Democratic dominance and Latino underrepresentation in positions of real power.
It emphasizes that Lopez’s political credibility comes from having already survived a 2023 recall effort backed by Santa Ana’s police union and apartment owners, which the piece describes as a decisive victory that marked a turning point for left-leaning Latinos in the region.[1]
The article frames Lopez’s record on the Santa Ana City Council—particularly work to strengthen rent control and expand an immigrant defense fund—as proof that progressive Latinos are now governing, not just organizing, and that these policies are resonating with working-class residents.[1]
It stresses the scale of opposition Lopez faces, noting that powerful interests and nearly $2.7 million in independent expenditures were deployed against her, and yet she still advanced to November, which the article casts as evidence that grassroots support can overcome big money in politics.
The column contrasts Lopez’s underdog status with the institutional backing behind rival Democrat David Penaloza, who is aligned with the county and state Democratic establishment, and interprets Lopez’s surge into second place as a rebuke to party insiders who had largely written off her chances.
It presents Lopez’s own framing of the race as a choice between “corporations and insiders” and “hard-working people,” highlighting endorsements from labor and progressive leaders as reinforcing her identity as a champion for working families rather than entrenched interests.[2]
The piece suggests that the Lopez–Penaloza matchup will function as a broader referendum on whether Latino voters in Orange County will continue a leftward drift or whether a more centrist orientation will reassert itself, positioning Lopez as the standard-bearer for the progressive side of that divide.
It further underscores Lopez’s uniqueness by noting that, with some other Latino progressives either safely re-elected at the local level or trailing in their own legislative bids, Lopez may be the only Orange County Latino progressive on the November ballot for higher office, heightening the stakes of her campaign.
Different views on the topic
Critics of Lopez in Santa Ana have argued that the councilmember’s agenda is too ideologically driven and insufficiently attentive to public safety and fiscal stability, a view that surfaced prominently during the 2023 recall, when backers contended that her policy positions undermined effective governance and community security.[1]
Recall supporters, including police union and property-owner interests, have maintained that Lopez’s role in strengthening rent control and supporting tenant protections represents an overreach that they believe discourages investment, burdens small landlords, and could ultimately reduce the supply and quality of housing in the city.[1]
Opponents have further asserted that her stances on issues such as policing and criminal justice skew too far left for parts of the electorate, arguing that more moderate Democrats or centrist candidates are better positioned to balance reform with public safety and to appeal to a broader cross-section of Orange County voters.[1]
From the perspective of some business-oriented and landlord groups, Lopez’s alignment with organized labor and progressive advocacy organizations, along with endorsements from high-profile national progressives, signals a policy direction they associate with higher regulatory costs, stricter labor standards, and a political climate they view as hostile to business growth.[2]
Within Democratic circles, the strong institutional support for David Penaloza and other establishment-aligned candidates reflects a competing view that stability, incremental change, and coalition-building with moderates are more effective strategies in competitive areas like Orange County than the confrontational style and ambitious reforms favored by progressive challengers.
Additionally, some analysts and political operatives point to mixed results for progressive Latino candidates elsewhere in the region as evidence that Lopez’s success is not guaranteed to translate into a broader realignment, and argue that many Latino voters in Orange County remain pragmatic swing voters rather than committed partisans of the left.
Skeptics of Lopez’s framing of “insiders versus working people” contend that such rhetoric oversimplifies complex policy debates, noting that unions, nonprofits, and progressive political organizations backing her are themselves powerful actors that shape legislation and budgets, and that community interests cannot be neatly divided into grassroots versus establishment.[2]
Finally, opponents warn that if Lopez’s approach becomes the dominant model for Latino politics in Orange County, it could sharpen ideological polarization inside local Democratic politics, potentially weakening the party’s ability to compete against Republicans in closely contested districts and to assemble broad coalitions needed to pass durable reforms.
Nearly 2,000 food and beverage workers at SoFi Stadium voted overwhelmingly Friday to authorize a strike just a week before the venue will stage the first World Cup game on U.S. soil in more than three decades.
Negotiations on a labor contract between Unite Here Local 11, the union representing the cooks, dishwashers, concession workers and bartenders at SoFi and, Legends Global, the stadium’s food-service operator, are expected to continue Monday despite the vote. But Kurt Petersen, the union’s co-president, said if an agreement isn’t reached workers will walk off the job and the 70,000 fans arriving for the June 12 match between the U.S. and Paraguay will be greeted by hundreds of picketers.
Union members have been working without a contract for a year and Petersen said Unite Here is demanding salary increases, protection against subcontracting and job loss through automation, and are protesting the collection of sensitive private information such as nationality and home addresses that FIFA, organizer of the World Cup, said it needs to accreditate workers.
Workers are also demanding the right to walk off the job if federal immigration enforcement enters the stadium and creates a reasonable fear for their safety. Ninety-six percent of the vote was in favor of strike authorization.
Legends Global, the stadium’s food-service operator, responded to the vote with a statement.
“Legends Global has presented progressive wage proposals to Unite Here Local 11 throughout our negotiations and remains confident an agreement is within reach,” it read. “While we expect a contract will be finalized in time, a contingency staffing plan is in place to ensure seamless operations and no disruption to fans. We remain committed to delivering an outstanding hospitality experience at the FIFA World Cup matches.”
That contingency plan would involve hiring replacement workers who would have to undergo the same detailed accreditation procedures demanded by FIFA, plus job training. SoFi Stadium is scheduled to play host to eight World Cup matches, including two of the U.S. team’s three group-stage games. The first of those is on June 12 when the U.S. faces Paraguay in its World Cup opener.
Petersen said the union is looking for “substantial increases” in hourly pay, to more than $30 an hour. Legends’ most recent proposal calls for wage freezes for some workers and a 25-cent hourly increase for cooks and dishwashers, the union said.
But perhaps the biggest sticking point is FIFA’s demand for workers’ sensitive personal information, including Social Security numbers and fingerprints, to process background checks. Under California privacy laws, workers have the right to know exactly what personal information their employer collects, how it will be used, and who it will be shared with. Local 11 said its members fears such information, if collected, could be made available to the Department of Homeland Security and ICE.
According to Petersen, when workers were originally hired by Legends they submitted the documentation necessary for employment, and under the current collective bargaining agreement the company does not have the right to request it again for FIFA.
FIFA has refused to comment on the contract talks, saying they are “between Legends Global and Unite Here Local 11.” But its insistence on collecting personal information is something Legends cannot address during contract talks, which makes a resolution impossible.
FIFA said it was partnering with the governments of the U.S., Canada and Mexico, the three countries in which the 39-day tournament will be played, “to enhance safety and security of all workers, staff, team members, vendors, journalists, volunteers, and spectators by mitigating potential insider threats. … Such name checks do not constitute pre-employment checks.”
All data collected during the name-check process, FIFA said, will be processed “in accordance with applicable data protection and privacy laws, and will be deleted by FIFA as soon as it is no longer needed for purposes of adjudicating requests for credentialed access to FIFA-controlled spaces.