Saif al-Islam: The Only Hope to Reunite Gaddafi's Supporters

Saif al-Islam Gaddafi is seen sitting in a plane in Zintan (File photo: Reuters)
Saif al-Islam Gaddafi is seen sitting in a plane in Zintan (File photo: Reuters)
TT

Saif al-Islam: The Only Hope to Reunite Gaddafi's Supporters

Saif al-Islam Gaddafi is seen sitting in a plane in Zintan (File photo: Reuters)
Saif al-Islam Gaddafi is seen sitting in a plane in Zintan (File photo: Reuters)

Seven years after the armed uprising of February 17, Asharq Al-Awsat publishes a series of articles in light of the newly revealed information about the hidden ties of Muammar Gaddafi's regime with officials of several countries.

The articles include details of alleged funding for election campaigns in Europe, including the campaign of former French President Nicolas Sarkozy, which remains the focus of an investigation by the French police.

Documents and testimonies, published for the first time, reveal details of the toppling of the former regime and the reasons for hostile reactions of senior officials in Qatar towards Gaddafi.

It seems that Qatar was seeking investment deals in Libya until late 2010, but officials close to Gaddafi stood against the Qatari ambitions, leading to a shift from friendship to rivalry and revenge.

This information was confirmed by recorded conversations between officials of the Gaddafi regime and friends of European heads of state, including a Lebanese businessman who attended meetings that brought together Gaddafi and his son Saif al-Islam, head of Libyan military intelligence Abdullah al-Snoussi, and French and Qatari figures.

France under Sarkozy was after huge deals, most notably the supply of Rafal aircraft, as the first export of this type of jets to a foreign country.

A close friend of Saif al-Islam al-Gaddafi said he had participated in committee meetings, including with Sarkozy's campaign associates, and had been involved in handing over funds to election campaigns in other Western countries. He also negotiated with Taliban leader Mullah Omar in Kandahar on the extradition of the "Libyan Afghans."

The first episode of this series revolves around Saif al-Islam's willingness to return to the spotlight and his chances of running for president in Libya, given that he was sentenced to death in his country and is wanted by the International Criminal Court.

Saleh Abdul Salam, former CEO of Gaddafi's Foundation, believe that Saif's presence gives some hope to the supporters of the former regime to reunite, even if just temporarily or in a "transitional phase." This view is also shared by former official at the Libyan tribal conference Ali al-Ahwal.

Saif's name resurfaced in Libya when his country, which is rich in oil and gas, was accused of terrorism and suffering from international isolation and blockade.

In the years leading up to Gaddafi's ouster, his son communicated with senior US leaders, including former US presidents Bill Clinton and George Bush Sr., to ease the situation.

Saif al-Islam received his PhD in economics first in Austria and then in London. There are many stories about his frequent visits to Europe, especially Britain, where he allegedly owns a £10 million house. This was denied by Saif last year.

After finishing his studies, Saif established an anti-narcotics organization and then founded the Gaddafi International Charity Foundation, which has become a group of associations.

On the whereabouts of Saif, a sheikh of al-Awakir tribe said he could not reveal Saif's exact location.

Saif's friend, like others, says: "He is in Libya ... and that's it." He claims the secrecy is due to "security concerns."

The supporters of the former regime believe local, regional and international parties don’t want Saif al-Islam to return to the spotlight, even if they had to get rid of him, according to a Libyan intelligence source. Given this alarming reality, Western media speculate whether Saif will seek to run for the next election.

Sheikh al-Awakir believes its Saif's right to run for the elections. However, it is not that simple given his legal situation.

Saif has been refusing to reveal his hideout, despite banners in several Libyan cities calling for his election under the slogan "Libya to peace ... led by Saif al-Islam."

According to security and tribal information, several international parties are trying to push extremists from a Libyan group linked to al-Qaeda to assassinate Saif, on the grounds that he has secrets that could expose and incriminate people inside and outside Libya.

When the "February uprising" began, Saif al-Islam was in Tripoli and his friend, who spoke to Asharq al-Awsat, was in Benghazi.

The friend has been advised by a Western diplomat to leave Libya since the early days of the uprising, he told Asharq Al-Awsat. He said: "This diplomat told me that this will not stop until Gaddafi is dead."

He was also informed that the United Nations and the Security Council will take several measures such as military intervention and a freeze of billions of dollars in Libya's offshore assets.

He managed to return miraculously from Benghazi to Tripoli and met Saif al-Islam to divulge this information.

Back then, Gaddafi had ended his famous speech, "Zanqa ... Zanqa", which was followed by a demonstration of thousands of supporters in the streets of Tripoli.

The Western diplomat, in turn, finished packing his bags to leave Tripoli following an advice from his Foreign Ministry to stop sending any messages about the situation in Libya. When Saif's friend asked the diplomat about the "reason behind all this hostility towards Libya," he told him the West believes now is the opportunity to get rid of Gaddafi.

Seven years after that incident, the friend described the uprising as Arab Spring, "indeed, in Spring snakes and scorpions come out."

"Libya has funds, oil and natural resources. The distance between Libya and Europe is just an hour trip across the sea," added the friend.

Today, despite the turbulent security situation in Libya, many supporters of the former regime believe that Saif al-Islam will score a "sweeping victory" if he enters the 2018 election race.

Some believe that as long as Saif is in a specific geographical area, campaigning will be difficult. But according to Saif's friend, this should not be an issue.

"This is not an obstacle ... Even in prison, there are people in contact (with others)," he said.

He also affirmed that channels of communication are open with the tribes. “It’s important for him now to get the country out of the dark tunnel," he concluded.



Iran at a Critical Crossroads Testing the Survival of its Regime

Burning debris lies in the middle of a street during protests in Hamedan, western Iran, Jan. 1, 2026. (AFP/Getty Images)
Burning debris lies in the middle of a street during protests in Hamedan, western Iran, Jan. 1, 2026. (AFP/Getty Images)
TT

Iran at a Critical Crossroads Testing the Survival of its Regime

Burning debris lies in the middle of a street during protests in Hamedan, western Iran, Jan. 1, 2026. (AFP/Getty Images)
Burning debris lies in the middle of a street during protests in Hamedan, western Iran, Jan. 1, 2026. (AFP/Getty Images)

Iran is confronting one of the most consequential junctures since the founding of the republic in 1979. The pressures bearing down on the system are no longer confined to economic sanctions or familiar forms of external coercion, but now cut to the heart of the governing formula itself: how to ensure the regime’s survival without accelerating the very forces that threaten to undermine it.

At the center of this moment lies a stark existential dilemma. A permissive response to internal unrest risks allowing protests to spread and harden into a protracted campaign of political attrition, while a sweeping security crackdown would heighten external dangers, at a time of mounting international hostility and unprecedented US warnings.

Caught between these two paths, Tehran finds its room for maneuver shrinking to levels it has rarely faced before.

Passing protests or structural shift?

The evolution of the current protests raises a central question about their nature: are they a containable social wave, or a deeper expression of a shift in public mood? The spread of demonstrations to small and medium-sized cities, and the widening of their social base, reflect an advanced level of discontent, even if it has not yet reached the threshold of a comprehensive explosion.

Farzin Nadimi, a senior Iran analyst at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy, argues that this wave differs from previous ones.

He told Asharq Al-Awsat that the latest protests, unlike earlier waves led by university students or low-income workers in major cities, are now driven by young people in smaller towns and supported by university students nationwide.

He described them as “more entrenched and widespread,” though not yet as large as some previous protests, noting the absence of government employees and oil workers, alongside a strong female presence once again.

This assessment aligns with the reading of Michael Rubin, a scholar at the American Enterprise Institute, who pointed to three key differences defining this wave: the nature of the participating forces, the symbolism of its launch from Tehran’s bazaar, and the impact of Israeli strikes that have punctured the aura surrounding Iran.

By contrast, Michael O’Hanlon, a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution, cautions against overestimating the street’s ability to bring about rapid change, noting that the Iranian system is highly organized and does not hesitate to use violence to control society.

‘Political fuel’

Iran’s economic crisis is no longer a technical issue that can be separated from politics. The collapse of the currency, the erosion of purchasing power, and declining trust in institutions have turned the economy into a direct driver of protest.

With each new round of pressure or sanctions, the sense deepens that the system is incapable of delivering real solutions without making political concessions.

Alex Vatanka, a Senior Fellow at the Middle East Institute in Washington, argues that what is unfolding goes beyond anger over prices or living conditions.

He told Asharq Al-Awsat that the protests reflect a deeper shift in public opinion, in which opposition is no longer directed at specific policies but at the model of governance itself. This shift, he said, confronts the system with a difficult question: can the economy be saved without rethinking the structure of power?

The security establishment: cohesion or fatigue?

Security institutions, from the Revolutionary Guards and their Basij mobilization arm to the intelligence services, form the backbone of the system’s ability to endure. Historically, these institutions have been the primary guarantor of internal stability, but mounting pressures now raise questions about their moral and ideological cohesion.

Rubin said that cracks are widening, pointing to rumors that Tehran has turned to deploying forces from Iraq’s Popular Mobilization Forces and Afghanistan’s Fatemiyoun Brigade due to declining confidence in some Revolutionary Guard units’ willingness to carry out orders.

Vatanka, for his part, acknowledged that these institutions remain cohesive for now, but warned that this cohesion is under growing strain from economic and social exhaustion, which over time could erode morale and produce partial fractures, even if open defections remain unlikely in the foreseeable future.

From deterrence to breaking taboos

If internal challenges are pressing on the structure of power, the external environment multiplies the risks. US-Israeli escalation, coupled with the waning weight of regional allies, places Iran before a radically different strategic landscape.

Threats by US President Donald Trump to support Iranian protesters signal a qualitative shift in US rhetoric, in which the focus is no longer confined to the nuclear program, but now includes Iran’s internal dynamics as part of the pressure equation.

Nadimi said that the developments in Venezuela and the arrest of Nicolas Maduro as carrying troubling implications for Tehran, while stressing the differences between the two cases, arguing that Iran is larger and more complex, and that Washington does not believe its system can be easily overthrown without a clear internal alternative.

Vatanka, however, sees a significant psychological impact from that precedent, saying it has weakened the assumption that leaders are immune from personal targeting.

The regional network: asset or burden?

Israeli strikes in June that targeted military leaders and sovereign symbols inside Iran reflect a shift in Israel’s security doctrine, from containment to direct confrontation.

O’Hanlon said that this pattern, following events in Venezuela and attacks on figures linked to Iran’s nuclear program, has become more likely under Trump, reflecting a willingness to break taboos that once held.

At the same time, questions are resurfacing over the effectiveness of Iran’s regional network. According to Vatanka, these arms are no longer a real deterrent, but have become, given their rising costs, a strategic burden.

Rubin agreed, adding that they have drained the state treasury, although he does not rule out the system turning to them if the crisis intensifies on the domestic front.

Amid this complex entanglement between internal and external pressures, the Iranian system’s options are narrowing as never before.

Between those who see this weakness as an opportunity to rebalance the region and those who fear widespread chaos, the core question remains: Is Tehran facing a manageable crisis of governance or an existential crisis that could shape Iran and the region for decades to come?


‘Nobody Is Going to Run Home’: Venezuelan Diaspora in Wait-and-See Mode

A young protester sits on a large-scale Venezuelan national flag during a protest following US military action in Venezuela, in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, 05 January 2026. (EPA)
A young protester sits on a large-scale Venezuelan national flag during a protest following US military action in Venezuela, in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, 05 January 2026. (EPA)
TT

‘Nobody Is Going to Run Home’: Venezuelan Diaspora in Wait-and-See Mode

A young protester sits on a large-scale Venezuelan national flag during a protest following US military action in Venezuela, in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, 05 January 2026. (EPA)
A young protester sits on a large-scale Venezuelan national flag during a protest following US military action in Venezuela, in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, 05 January 2026. (EPA)

"A new dawn for Venezuela" is how a top US diplomat described the future awaiting the Caribbean country after Saturday's capture of President Nicolas Maduro by US special forces in a raid on Caracas.

But for some of the eight million Venezuelans who fled the country over the past decade of economic ruin and repression, the joy at seeing Maduro hauled before a New York court on Monday was tempered by the knowledge that his henchmen remain at the helm.

News of Maduro's demise initially triggered scenes of jubilation among the diaspora.

Several people choked up as they recalled the hardship they fled, and the family they left behind, over the course of his increasingly despotic rule.

But while many said they dreamed about returning to their homeland, they made it clear they had no plans to pack their bags just yet.

Most cited the country's tattered economy as a reason to keep working abroad and sending home remittances.

Some also spoke of their fear of Venezuela's security apparatus, pointing to the paramilitaries who roamed the streets of Caracas on Saturday to crack down on anyone rejoicing over Maduro's ouster.

"There has been no change of regime in Venezuela, there is no transition," said Ligia Bolivar, a Venezuelan sociologist and rights activist living in Colombia since 2019.

"In these circumstances nobody is going to run home," she told AFP.

Standing outside the Venezuelan consulate in Bogota, where he was waiting to renew his passport on Monday, Alejandro Solorzano, 35, echoed that view.

"Everything remains the same," he said, referring to US President Donald Trump's decision to work with Maduro's administration rather than the democratic opposition.

Maduro's former deputy Delcy Rodriguez was sworn in as acting president on Monday, becoming the interim head of an administration that still includes hardline Interior Minister Diosdado Cabello and powerful Defense Minister Vladimir Padrino Lopez.

Cabello in particular is a figure of dread for many Venezuelans, after commandeering a crackdown on post-election protests in 2024 in which some 2,400 people were arrested.

Many Venezuelans were particularly shocked by Trump's decision to sideline opposition leader Maria Corina Machado, a Nobel Peace Prize laureate, from the transition.

The European Union on Monday demanded that any transition include Machado and her replacement candidate in the 2024 elections Maduro is accused of stealing, Edmundo Gonzalez Urrutia.

Andrea, a 47-year-old immigration advisor living in Buenos Aires, argued, however, that Machado's hour had not yet come.

"Until Trump sees that the situation is under control, until he has all these criminals by the balls, he won't be able to put Maria Corina in charge. Because that would be throwing her to the wolves," she said.

- 'No other way' -

Luis Peche, a political analyst who survived a gun attack in Bogota last year suspected of being a political hit, also argued in favor of a negotiated transition.

"We have to see this as a process," Peche told AFP, referring to Venezuela's transition.

"You still need part of the state apparatus to remain," he said.

Tamara Suju, a leading Venezuelan rights expert based in Spain, said that keeping the same tainted cast in charge was a necessary evil -- in the short term.

"They are the ones with whom the Trump administration is negotiating the transition because there is no other way to do it," she told Spain's esRadio, predicting they would eventually be forced by Washington to fall on their swords.

Edwin Reyes, a 46-year-old window installer living in Colombia for the past eight years, said that once Venezuela was "completely free" he would consider a move back.

"We've waited so long, another four or five months won't hurt."


Trump Administration's Capture of Maduro Raises Unease about the International Legal Framework

President Donald Trump waves as he arrives on Air Force One, Sunday, Jan. 4, 2026, at Joint Base Andrews, Md. (AP Photo/Alex Brandon)
President Donald Trump waves as he arrives on Air Force One, Sunday, Jan. 4, 2026, at Joint Base Andrews, Md. (AP Photo/Alex Brandon)
TT

Trump Administration's Capture of Maduro Raises Unease about the International Legal Framework

President Donald Trump waves as he arrives on Air Force One, Sunday, Jan. 4, 2026, at Joint Base Andrews, Md. (AP Photo/Alex Brandon)
President Donald Trump waves as he arrives on Air Force One, Sunday, Jan. 4, 2026, at Joint Base Andrews, Md. (AP Photo/Alex Brandon)

From the smoldering wreckage of two catastrophic world wars in the last century, nations came together to build an edifice of international rules and laws. The goal was to prevent such sprawling conflicts in the future.

Now that world order — centered at the United Nations headquarters in New York, near the courtroom where Nicolás Maduro was arraigned Monday after his removal from power in Venezuela — appears in danger of crumbling as the doctrine of “might makes right” muscles its way back onto the global stage.

UN Undersecretary-General Rosemary A. DiCarlo told the body's Security Council on Monday that the “maintenance of international peace and security depends on the continued commitment of all member states to adhere to all the provisions of the (UN) Charter.”

US President Donald Trump insists capturing Maduro was legal. His administration has declared the drug cartels operating from Venezuela to be unlawful combatants and said the US is now in an “armed conflict” with them, according to an administration memo obtained in October by The Associated Press.

The mission to snatch Maduro and his wife Cilia Flores from their home on a military base in the capital Caracas means they face charges of participating in a narco-terrorism conspiracy. The US ambassador to the United Nations, Mike Waltz, defended the military action as a justified “surgical law enforcement operation.”

The move fits into the Trump administration’s National Security Strategy, published last month, that lays out restoring “American preeminence in the Western Hemisphere” as a key goal of the US president's second term in the White House.

But could it also serve as a blueprint for further action?

Worry rises about future action

On Sunday evening, Trump also put Venezuela’s neighbor, Colombia, and its leftist president, Gustavo Petro, on notice.

In a back-and-forth with reporters, Trump said Colombia is “run by a sick man who likes making cocaine and selling it to the United States.” The Trump administration imposed sanctions in October on Petro, his family and a member of his government over accusations of involvement in the global drug trade. Colombia is considered the epicenter of the world’s cocaine trade.

Analysts and some world leaders — from China to Mexico — have condemned the Venezuela mission. Some voiced fears that Maduro’s ouster could pave the way for more military interventions and a further erosion of the global legal order.

French Foreign Minister Jean-Noël Barrot said the capture of Maduro “runs counter to the principle of the non-use of force, which forms the basis of international law.”

He warned the “increasing number of violations of this principle by nations vested with the important responsibility of permanent membership on the United Nations Security Council will have serious consequences for global security and will spare no one.”

Here are some global situations that could be affected by changing attitudes on such issues.

Ukraine

For nearly four years, Europe has been dealing with Russia’s war of aggression in neighboring Ukraine, a conflict that grates against the eastern flank of the continent and the transatlantic NATO alliance and has widely been labeled a grave breach of international law.

The European Union relies deeply on US support to keep Ukraine afloat, particularly after the administration warned that Europe must look after its own security in the future.

Vasily Nebenzya, the Russian ambassador to the UN, said the mission to extract Maduro amounted to “a turn back to the era of lawlessness” by the United States. During the UN Security Council’s emergency meeting, he called on the 15-member panel to “unite and to definitively reject the methods and tools of US military foreign policy.”

Volodymyr Fesenko, chairman of the board of the Penta think tank in Kyiv, Ukraine, said Russian President Vladimir Putin has long undermined the global order and weakened international law.

“Unfortunately,” he said, “Trump’s actions have continued this trend.”

Greenland

Trump fanned another growing concern for Europe when he openly speculated about the future of the Danish territory of Greenland.

“It’s so strategic right now. Greenland is covered with Russian and Chinese ships all over the place,” Trump told reporters Sunday as he flew back to Washington from his home in Florida. “We need Greenland from the standpoint of national security, and Denmark is not going to be able to do it.”

Danish Prime Minister Mette Frederiksen said in a statement that Trump has “no right to annex” the territory. She also reminded Trump that Denmark already provides the US, a fellow NATO member, broad access to Greenland through existing security agreements.

Taiwan

The mission to capture Maduro has ignited speculation about a similar move China could make against the leader of Taiwan, Lai Ching-te. Just last week, in response to a US plan to sell a massive military arms package to Taipei, China conducted two days of military drills around the island emocracy that Beijing claims as its own territory.

Beijing, however, is unlikely to replicate Trump’s action in Venezuela, which could prove destabilizing and risky.

Chinese strategy has been to gradually increase pressure on Taiwan through military harassment, propaganda campaigns and political influence rather than to single out Lai as a target. China looks to squeeze Taiwan into eventually accepting a status similar to Hong Kong and Macau, which are governed semi-autonomously on paper but have come under increasing central control.

For China, Maduro’s capture also brings a layer of uncertainty about the Trump administration’s ability to move fast, unpredictably and audaciously against other governments. Beijing has criticized Maduro’s capture, calling it a “blatant use of force against a sovereign state” and saying Washington is acting as the “world’s judge.”

The Mideast

Israel's grinding attack on Gaza in the aftermath of the Oct. 7, 2023, attacks by Hamas underscored the international community's inability to stop a devastating conflict. The United States, Israel's staunchest ally, vetoed Security Council resolutions calling for ceasefires in Gaza.

Trump already has demonstrated his willingness to take on Israel's neighbor and longtime US adversary Iran over its nuclear program with military strikes on sites in Iran in June 2025.

On Friday, Trump warned Iran that if Tehran “violently kills peaceful protesters,” the US “will come to their rescue.” Violence sparked by Iran’s ailing economy has killed at least 35 people, activists said Tuesday.

Iran’s Foreign Ministry condemned the “illegal US attack against Venezuela.”

Europe and Trump

The 27-nation European Union, another post-World War II institution intended to foster peace and prosperity, is grappling with how to respond to its traditional ally under the Trump administration. In a clear indication of the increasingly fragile nature of the transatlantic relationship, Trump’s national security strategy painted the bloc as weak.

While insisting Maduro has no political legitimacy, the EU said in a statement on the mission to capture him that “the principles of international law and the UN Charter must be upheld,” adding that members of the UN Security Council “have a particular responsibility to uphold those principles.”

But outspoken Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orbán, a close Trump ally, spoke disparagingly about the role international law plays in regulating the behavior of countries.

International rules, he said, “do not govern the decisions of many great powers. This is completely obvious.”