The international reaction was fairly muted. Bear in mind that the whole conflict stemmed from the US being unwilling/unable to pay tribute to the beys to protect their ships from piracy. The diplomats quickly sued for peace, the US withdrew, and US ships were protected from Tripolitanian piracy for the time being.

North Africa should really be seen as the Ottoman periphery in this period. These were essentially self-sustaining pirate states that paid tribute to the Sultan and went about their business. Istanbul had more pressing issues.

The real take-away from Barbary is the paradox of the US (under Jefferson!!) occupying a foreign state, then deciding to leave as it ran counter to US ideals. If nothing else, it signals Jefferson’s coming around on some issues he had with Federalsim.

Frank Lambert did a fairly solid book on Barbary in 2005, albeit under the influence of 9/11. If you can get your hands on it, the US Navy released a multi-volume work that includes just about every diplomatic communique, government decision, and personal letter from the founding generation. It is an incredible collection of primary sources. The links are loading slow on mobile, but this one may cover the time period: http://www.ibiblio.org/anrs/docs/E/E3/nd_barbarywars_v06.pdf

Edit: correct link

Edit2: To that paragraph on the US and Jefferson, I’d add that it is the first example of the US doctrine of “regime change”