Among the most complicated tasks, diplomatic mission is the most demanding and the most complicated, since it presupposes not only the interaction of different cultures with completely different pictures of the world, but also the solution of the conflicts which arise as a result of the above-mentioned discrepancies. However, with the help of an appropriate leadership style or a successfully developed combination of the ones, sufficient results can be obtained. Analyzing the leadership strategies used by Ali Aujali one of the most prominent Asian diplomats, one can possibly understand the way in which leadership theories can be put into practice. Tracing the peculiarities of the ambassador’s policy, one can see evidently that Ali obviously uses the path-goal theory, since he convinces people that the cooperation between Libya and the United States is bound to prove efficient. As Northouse (2009) stresses, A second positive feature of path-goal theory is that it attempts to integrate the motivation principles of expectancy theory into a theory of leadership. This makes path-goal theory unique because no other leadership approach deals directly with motivation in this way. (p. 133) Hence, it is clear that the theory chosen by Ali combines at least two approaches, which doubles the efficiency of the strategy. It can also be claimed that Ali Aujali has been using consistently the style approach, since Ali has been shaping thoroughly the image of his own self as well as the entire population of Libya to achieve the mutual understanding between the USA and the Middle East. According to what the leader says, “It is important to reiterate that the Libyan people stand firmly and unequivocally alongside America and the West in the fight against terrorism,” (Aujali, 2009), which means that Ali is trying to position Libya as the country searching for the U. S. government’s understanding and cooperation. With the help of these rather wise steps, Ali has managed to shape people’s opinion of the country and its population as friendly and willing to build strong relationships. Reminding the leader that the “impact on others occurs through the tasks they [leaders] perform as well as in the relationships they create” (Northouse, 2009, p. 78). According to Elshinnavi (2009), the ambassador was determined to cooperate with the United States of the USA as long as the latter changed their policy towards the Muslim world and make it obvious that the new USA policy is aimed at establishing highly trustful relationships with the Middle East instead of the existing ones, which were at that point rather cold and hostile. As the ambassador explained himself, Until we see this change in American policy in the Middle East, and we see that Americans have shifted from supporting one side against the other side, until we see a clear position of the administration that they will help to stop the new settlements, I think the Arab world still will not believe there is a change in the administration’s foreign policy. (Elshinnavi, 2009) Thus, it can be concluded that the strategy which the ambassador used to establish better relationships between the Middle East and the rest of the world could be described as th