A quiet visit to Libya by a senior advisor to U.S. President Donald Trump has sparked speculation about Washington’s renewed interest in the North African country, particularly regarding its ongoing political stalemate.
Massad Boulos, who advises the President on Middle Eastern and African affairs, visited Libya in July, shortly after deadly unrest erupted in Tripoli.
The clashes were fueled by competition among rival militias and widespread public unrest over the stalled political process and deteriorating public services, raising fears of a prolonged conflict.
Libya has a complex landscape of entrenched political actors, each adept at avoiding meaningful concessions.
However, Boulos’ visit may signal a shift in U.S. engagement, especially following significant geopolitical changes in the region.
In December, after the fall of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad, Russia redeployed naval assets to eastern Libya, igniting concerns about an expanding Russian influence in the southern Mediterranean.
Moscow has consistently supported eastern military commander Khalifa Haftar and his self-styled Libyan National Army (LNA), while simultaneously maintaining relationships with rivals in the west, balancing its influence throughout Libya’s fractured political landscape.
Boulos’ recent visit came after his success in negotiating a peace accord between the Democratic Republic of Congo and Rwanda, which may have influenced U.S. perspectives on Libya’s political dynamics.
During his trip, Boulos engaged with a variety of Libyan figures from both east and west, including meetings in Tripoli with Prime Minister Abdulhamid Dbeibah and Presidential Council head Mohamed al-Menfi, and discussions in Benghazi with Haftar and House of Representatives Speaker Aguila Saleh.
These political leaders operate alongside armed factions that are integral to their power bases, complicating the possibility of meaningful political progress.
Dbeibah’s authority in Tripoli is supported by militias, while the LNA’s military strength underpins the House of Representatives’ relevance in the east.
Rather than favoring one side over the other, the U.S. seems to be exploring a more balanced approach by engaging with both factions to evaluate their willingness to cooperate in establishing a framework that could stabilize Libya and limit external influence, particularly from Russia.
In the west, Dbeibah appears to maintain implicit U.S. recognition as the head of the internationally acknowledged government.
However, Washington’s strategy now seems to embrace the reality of Libya’s political division, potentially leading to new political avenues.
This approach suggests a pivot towards managing the existing divisions instead of seeking their resolution, reflecting the absence of a clear mechanism to compel entrenched political actors towards genuine compromises.
Such a strategy is likely intended to protect immediate U.S. interests in energy and security by fostering a functional equilibrium among rival authorities.
Reviving Libya’s constitutional process within this context may serve as a tool for postponing deeper political challenges while allowing current leaders to reposition themselves.
Libyan elites must now decipher whether this moment presents a genuine opportunity for realignment or merely a caution against miscalculations.
In terms of economics, Boulos’ visit had a significant focus on Libya’s vital energy sector, which is critical to the nation’s GDP and state income.
Boulos announced an impending memorandum of understanding between Libya’s National Oil Corporation (NOC) and ExxonMobil to initiate offshore gas exploration—an initiative that could elevate Libya’s status in global energy markets.
Additionally, a nearly completed agreement involving the Waha Oil Company and ConocoPhillips aims to boost production from the Waha field.
Further, Boulos witnessed the signing of a $235 million agreement between Mellitah Oil & Gas and American firm Hill International, which is slated to support major gas infrastructure development in Libya.
The success of these initiatives, however, is by no means guaranteed; their realization is contingent upon Libya’s ability to achieve a minimum level of political coherence, security, and administrative coordination, which remains a significant challenge in the current climate.
If such progress is not made, foreign investors may be hesitant to follow through on their commitments.
Nonetheless, these actions clearly indicate Washington’s intent to consolidate its economic influence in Libya, using U.S. energy firms as vehicles for strategic engagement amid escalating competition from Russia, Italy, and Türkiye.
Energy investment is perceived not only as an economic opportunity but also as a political lever.
The U.S. strategy aims to use investment as a stabilizing force, rewarding those who can provide secure environments for foreign capital.
In this context, Boulos’ interactions with Haftar’s son, Saddam, take on added significance.
Although still under his father’s influence, Saddam has begun positioning himself as a potential intermediary for foreign partners interested in the economic future of eastern Libya, leveraging his connections with key countries, including Türkiye.
Saddam’s promotion of a vision encompassing “security and investment” could resonate in Washington, contingent upon assurances of a stable environment for American enterprises.
The U.S. appears to be banking on the premise that large-scale investment projects may help moderate the behaviors of armed factions or at least diminish their capacity for escalation.
Boulos’ visit represents a calculated return to the Libyan scene for the U.S., driven by a pragmatic and interest-focused strategy.
In contrast to the advocacy for democratic transformations in the past, the current U.S. stance seems geared towards recalibrating local power dynamics, securing energy partnerships, and counteracting geopolitical rivals.
While certain Libyan factions may perceive this renewed engagement as a step towards greater international acknowledgment, the lack of a defined peace-building framework raises an urgent question: can this new diplomacy establish a foundation for lasting peace in a nation fractured by distrust and competing power claims?
The implications of Boulos’ visit prompt a moment of introspection for Libya’s political elites.
The renewed U.S. engagement, although centered on stability and security, suggests that global actors are reconsidering their roles in the context of Libya’s evolving political landscape.
How Libyan stakeholders choose to interpret and respond to these developments—whether as an invitation to pursue a more inclusive political dialogue or as a temporary alignment of interests—will significantly influence the country’s future trajectory.
If the opportunity arises for discussions centered around a shared political framework, it may create a pathway to alleviate divisions and establish the groundwork for enduring peace.
image source from：mecouncil
