NATO's intervention in Libya has been hailed as a successful application of the novel R2P doctrine. However, NATO's conduct was not consistent with the directives of its mandate as the actions of the coalition signalled a clear transgression; a policy of regime change was sought after which, as a result, subjugated civilians to violence orchestrated by the NATO-backed rebels. This unprecedent phenomenon leads to an inquiry into the role of national interests in the military intervention in Libya and the subsequent regime change. In a region that has long been enduring brutal crackdowns on human rights and political freedoms, humanitarian action is undoubtedly crucial to the rescue of civilians that stand helpless in the face of humanitarian crimes; however, a number of the region's dictatorial regimes practiced unrestrained violence against protestors at the outset of the Arab Spring yet these equally appalling humanitarian atrocities witnessed no third-party intervention, on the contrary these implicated regimes continued to enjoy undisrupted relations with members of the NATO coalition in Libya. This selective approach to humanitarian action is reason to explore motives outside of the R2P doctrine in the Libyan intervention.