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
20

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.



India and Pakistan Don’t Fight Wars Like Other Countries. Here’s Why 

This photograph taken on May 9, 2025 shows the Neelum River flowing through Muzaffarabad, the capital of Pakistan-administered Kashmir. (AFP)
This photograph taken on May 9, 2025 shows the Neelum River flowing through Muzaffarabad, the capital of Pakistan-administered Kashmir. (AFP)
TT
20

India and Pakistan Don’t Fight Wars Like Other Countries. Here’s Why 

This photograph taken on May 9, 2025 shows the Neelum River flowing through Muzaffarabad, the capital of Pakistan-administered Kashmir. (AFP)
This photograph taken on May 9, 2025 shows the Neelum River flowing through Muzaffarabad, the capital of Pakistan-administered Kashmir. (AFP)

India and Pakistan have fought three full-scale wars since they gained independence from Britain in 1947. They’ve also had dozens of skirmishes and conflicts, including one atop a glacier dubbed the coldest and highest-altitude battlefield in the world.

The latest escalation follows a deadly gun attack on tourists that India blames Pakistan for — Islamabad denies any connection. But they don’t fight wars like other countries.

The dominant factor is their nuclear weapons arsenal, a distinct way of deterring major attacks and a guarantee that fighting doesn’t get out of hand, even when the situation is spiraling.

Here’s how — and why — India and Pakistan fight the way they do:

Their nuclear arsenals can destroy each other “Pakistan and India have enough nuclear weapons to wipe the other side out several times over,” says security analyst Syed Mohammed Ali, who is based in Islamabad, the Pakistani capital. “Their nuclear weapons create a scenario for mutually assured destruction.”

Both countries have “deliberately developed” the size and range of their stockpile to remind the other about the guarantee of mutually assured destruction, he adds.

Neither country discloses their nuclear capabilities but each is thought to have between 170 and 180 warheads that are short-, long- and medium-range. Both countries have different delivery systems — ways of launching and propelling these weapons to their targets.

The arsenals are a defensive move to prevent and deter further fighting, because “neither side can afford to initiate such a war or hope to achieve anything from it,” Ali says.

It might not look this way to the outsider, but nuclear weapons are a reminder to the other side that they can't take things too far.

But the secrecy around their arsenals means that it's unclear if Pakistan or India can survive a first nuclear strike and retaliate, something called “second-strike capability.”

This capacity stops an opponent from attempting to win a nuclear war through a first strike by preventing aggression that could lead to nuclear escalation.

Without this capability, there is, in theory, nothing to stop one side from launching a warhead at the other.

Kashmir at the crux of the dispute India and Pakistan have each laid claim to Kashmir since 1947, when both gained independence, and border skirmishes have created instability in the region for decades. Each country controls a part of Kashmir, which is divided by a heavily militarized border.

The two archrivals have also fought two of their three wars over Kashmir — a disputed Himalayan region divided between the them where armed insurgents resist Indian rule. Many Muslim Kashmiris support the rebels’ goal of uniting the territory, either under Pakistani rule or as an independent country.

Border flare-ups and militant attacks in India-controlled Kashmir have prompted New Delhi to take an increasingly tough position on Islamabad, accusing it of “terrorism.”

In the latest conflict, India punished Pakistan by hitting what it said were sites used by Pakistan-backed militants linked to a gun massacre last month.

A conventional military imbalance India is one of the biggest defense spenders in the world, with $74.4 billion in 2025, according to the Military Balance report from the International Institute for Strategic Studies. It’s also one of the world’s largest arms importers.

Pakistan is no slouch, spending $10 billion last year, but it can never match India’s deep pockets. India also has more than double the number of active armed forces personnel than Pakistan does.

While India’s armed forces are traditionally focused on Pakistan, it has another nuclear neighbor to contend with, China, and it is increasingly concerned with maritime security in the Indian Ocean. Those are two factors that Pakistan doesn’t have to consider in its security paradigm.

Pakistan's long and narrow shape, together with the outsized role of the military in foreign policy, makes it easier to move the armed forces around and prioritize defense.

A pattern of escalation and defusing Neither Pakistan or India are in a hurry to announce their military moves against the other and, as seen in the current flare-up of hostilities, it can take a while for confirmation of strikes and retaliation to surface.

But both launch operations into territories and airspace controlled by the other. Sometimes these are intended to damage checkpoints, installations, or sites allegedly used by militants.

They are also aimed at embarrassing or provoking — forcing leaders to bow to public pressure and respond, with the potential for miscalculation.

Many of these activities originate along the Line of Control, which divides Kashmir between India and Pakistan. It's largely inaccessible to the media and public, making it hard to independently verify claims of an attack or retaliation.

Such incidents raise international alarm, because both countries have nuclear capabilities, forcing attention back to India and Pakistan and, eventually, their competing claims over Kashmir.

The fear of nuclear war has put the two countries at the top of the agenda, competing with the papal conclave, US President Donald Trump’s policies, and the Sean “Diddy” Combs trial in the news cycle.

No desire for conquest, influence or resources Pakistan and India’s battles and skirmishes are away from the public eye.

Strikes and retaliation are late at night or early in the morning and, with the exception of the drone attacks on Thursday, they mostly take place away from densely populated urban centers. It shows that neither country has the desire to significantly harm the other’s population. Attacks are either described as surgical or limited.

Neither country is motivated by competition for resources. Pakistan has huge mineral wealth, but India isn't interested in these and, while there are stark ideological differences between Hindu-majority India and Muslim-majority Pakistan, they don’t seek control or influence over the other.

Other than Kashmir, they have no interest in claiming the other’s territory or exercising dominance.