Without a unity government, it is likely that Libya would lose control over its assets abroad and raise the potential for an international ban on oil sales due to the lack of a legitimate government that can handle oil revenues. The failure to agree a unity government would result in increased hostilities, the collapse of local ceasefires, and the failure of reconciliation initiatives. Such an environment provides fertile ground for groups such as the Islamic State (ISIS or ISIL) to expand and operate with impunity.
If this scenario becomes reality, it would leave the international community with limited options on how to handle the situation in Libya. Countries could choose to adopt a containment approach, managing the flow of migrants and the expansion of ISIS through limited and targeted intervention such as naval blockade and air strikes. But a military approach risks the involvement of regional players such as Egypt, Algeria, the EU, and the United States acting unilaterally inside Libya to protect their own national security interests.
Alternatively, the international community could choose to deal with two different Libyas: one in the east supported and dominated by the LNA and one in the west supported and dominated primarily by Misratan and Islamist armed groups. Yet this approach would mean a de facto partition of the country, paving the way for disintegration of Libya into smaller pieces, especially in the western and southern regions.
The unity government proposal represent an opportunity that must not be missed by Libyans and the international community to get their war-torn country back on track—and prevent a Somalia-like fragmentation from unfolding on the Mediterranean.