The situation in Libya appears to be verging on a stalemate, with rebels controlling the east of the country and a few cities in the west and Muammar Gaddafi’s forces in control of Tripoli and the surrounding area. Neither side has made substantial gains after the country was more or less divided in two since the revolution began.

Unlike the revolutions in Egypt and Tunisia, the response of the regime in Libya has been exceptionally brutal; unarmed civilians have been mowed down by heavy weapons, the air force has been used to bomb rebel-held territory and the regime has made use of mercenaries from sub-Sahara Africa to crush any resistance.

Gaddafi is a dictator along the lines of Saddam Hussein and not Hosni Mubarak and Zine El Abidine Ben Ali, and he will go to any length to stay in power. Furthermore, unlike in Egypt and Tunisia, the military in Libya is not part of the political structure of the government and it was intentionally kept weak in order to prevent it from posing a threat to Gaddafi.

As a result, the army, which has witnessed mass desertions to the rebels, is not in a position to convince Gaddafi to step down. Instead of relying on a strong military to prop up his regime, Gaddafi has surrounded himself with loyal militias, paramilitary units and the secret police who are responsible only to him, and who are absolutely ruthless in their defence of the Libyan dictator.

Furthermore, the lack of political and military ties between the Libyan regime and the West has worked in favour of Gaddafi. When Mubarak and Ben Ali realised they had lost the support of their friends in Europe and Washington, they knew it was time to move on, prodded, of course, by their military, which were heavily influenced by the West.

In Libya’s case, Gaddafi has no friends; he does not really care what the international community says and he is not influenced by any outside power. So he cannot be persuaded by anyone to move on.

The response of the international community so far has been encouraging but clearly more will have to be done as the situation develops. The UN Security Council has decided to impose an asset freeze on Gaddafi and some of his children, an arms embargo on Libya and a travel ban on Gaddafi, his children and close associates of the regime, and to refer the situation in Libya to the International Criminal Court.

Both the EU and the US have imposed additional sanctions on Libya due to the gravity of the situation.

World leaders have made it clear that Gaddafi must step down and that Libya has no future with the dictator in power. British Prime Minister David Cameron, US President Barack Obama, German Chancellor Angela Merkel, French President Nicolas Sarkozy, Italian Foreign Minister Franco Frattini, Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper, European Commission President Jose Manwel Barroso and Qatari Prime Minister Sheikh Hamad bin Jassim al-Thani have all called on Gaddafi to go.

So it is clear that Gaddafi is finished as an international player; there will be no engagement with Libya if he clings on to power and he will now revert to being a pariah in the eyes of the global community.

After the UN sanctions over Libya were lifted in return for its cooperation over Lockerbie, the West started engaging with the Libyan regime, Libya began to encourage foreign investment, and Tripoli voluntarily decided to give up its nuclear and chemical weapons programmes.

Gaddafi had a golden opportunity to start a process of political reform, which of course, he did not, and his behaviour since the unrest began has shown he has not changed one bit.

Engaging with Gaddafi produced some positive results, such us the doing away with the weapons of mass destruction programmes – imagine what he would do today if he still had these weapons!

However, the West was mistaken if it believed political reform would automatically follow the country opening up to foreign investment and cooperating on various international issues, and there are lessons to be learnt here.

What options does the international community have now in dealing with Gaddafi? There is little appetite in the West for a full-scale military intervention in yet another Muslim country. US Secretary of State Robert Gates made a very blunt statement last Thursday – which surprisingly made few international headlines – when he said any future defence secretary who advised the President to send a big US land army to Asia, the Middle East or Africa “should have his head examined”.

The sending of Western troops to Libya would, in fact, be a huge mistake because there are bound to be many complications, and anyway, this is something the rebels have not requested.

A no-fly zone – which would prevent mercenaries being flown into Libya and the Libyan air force from bombing its people – seems the best option, but even here things are not so simple.

Such a course of action would require the complete destruction of Libya’s air defence systems, and there seems to be no consensus for a no-fly zone at the UN Security Council.

Nato, of course, could impose a no-fly zone without UN backing if it wants to, but France and Turkey, two key alliance players, have voiced some opposition to this.

Sooner or later, however, some sort of military action will probably have to be taken, either if the atrocities get worse, or if Libya risks becoming a failed state, or to quote Hillary Clinton “one big Somalia”.

The ideal outcome, of course, would be if Gaddafi’s loyalists turn on him or if the Arab League decided to impose a no-fly zone, as it hinted it might.

We just have to wait and see.