As political and institutional divisions persist in Libya, Washington's recent moves to reunite the country's institutions are raising concerns that they could entrench the power of rival families rather than resolve the crisis.
Tim Eaton, a research fellow in the Middle East and North Africa program at the British think tank Chatham House, described the United States hosting retired General Khalifa Haftar's son Saddam Haftar and arranging a meeting with Secretary of State Marco Rubio as a significant political development in an analysis published by Foreign Policy.
Eaton wrote that these steps raise the question of whether Washington is moving toward legitimizing a power-sharing agreement between the Haftar and Dbeibeh families.
The analysis noted that the Trump administration has outlined its goal as "a unified government and the unification of all institutions," but in practice, the proposed formula would give the Dbeibeh family the leadership of the government and the Haftar family the leadership of the presidential council.
It was emphasized that this arrangement could institutionalize the influence of the two families rather than opening the way for elections and a genuine political transition.
Transition period or permanent power?
Foreign Policy stated that the plan in question is presented as a transition period supporting the roadmap under the auspices of the United Nations, but according to analysts, the real likelihood is that Dbeibeh and Haftar will try to make their positions permanent.
It was noted that this scenario would end the hopes of Libyans for political change and move the competition between the families inside state institutions.
The article also touched on the course of the Libyan crisis since 2011, recalling that two rival governments continue to exist in the east and west of the country, and that elections planned for 2021 failed.
It was pointed out that during this process, the Haftar and Dbeibeh families have increased their control over state institutions and financial resources.
According to information based on unnamed sources cited in the analysis, the proposed agreement gives Saddam Haftar the chairmanship of the presidential council and, consequently, the authority of supreme commander of the armed forces.
It was recalled that this situation could open the door for Haftar's forces to expand their influence into western Libya, but that their attempt to capture Tripoli between 2019 and 2020 ended in failure.
Eaton stated that Haftar's and his son's past performance does not inspire confidence that they are ready for genuine power-sharing, predicting that Saddam Haftar could see this new position as "a platform for full control of the state," while the Dbeibeh family would not be content with continuing the leadership of the government without guarantees to curb the military influence of their rivals.
The US initiative came after Washington brokered the adoption of a unified $30.1 billion budget for the first time since 2014. This is considered a significant diplomatic achievement after years of deadlock.
However, Foreign Policy wrote that the implementation of the budget still faces serious obstacles and that this budget could be a more effective leverage tool than forming a new government.
The analysis, which emphasized that the US has real leverage tools such as restricting access to dollars or imposing individual sanctions on influential figures who fail to meet their commitments, called for using these tools to impose institutional reforms rather than settling for a political agreement between the families.
Economic interests and the Chevron factor
It is stated that the Trump administration also views Libya through the lens of economic interests, particularly aiming to increase the presence of American companies in the oil sector.
The article noted that the US Special Envoy for Libya, Massad Boulos, has openly spoken about investment opportunities and has contributed to Chevron's return to the Libyan market, while pointing out that the success of these investments first requires improving economic governance and ensuring fiscal discipline.
Eaton stated that a joint government between Dbeibeh and Haftar would ease immediate pressures but would not resolve the crisis, instead moving the conflict inside state institutions and eroding institutional independence.
Referring to Washington's experiences in supporting influential figures such as Hamid Karzai in Afghanistan and Nouri al-Maliki in Iraq, Eaton emphasized that "relying on the rule of individuals rather than building institutions is doomed to failure."
The analyst assessed that "failure to reach an agreement may be better than a bad agreement that will perpetuate the power of the families at the expense of Libya's future."
