Haftar’s diplomatic manoeuvring centres on the ISIS hostages

For the young leader of eastern Libya, Saddam Haftar, the release of Western hostages captured by Islamist terrorists is proving to be a highly lucrative venture in terms of his public image. What makes mediating with the Islamic State of the Greater Sahara (ISWAP) or the Group for the Support of Islam and Muslims (JNIM) so profitable are the political implications, which allow him to establish himself in the eyes of the world as a reliable leader. However, this practice also involves funneling tens of millions of dollars into the terrorists’ coffers, often alongside drones and other weapons. The latest case involves two women abducted by ISWAP in 2025 in Agadez, Niger, and released on 22 October. Claudia Abbt, a 69-year-old Swiss national, and 76-year-old Eva Gretzmacher, an Austrian, were photographed free and smiling at Benghazi airport, sitting on two armchairs adorned with a portrait of Khalifa Haftar, the father of their rescuer, Saddam. A week later, a military group operating in Fezzan in southern Libya – known as the Operations Room for the Liberation of the South – arrested the kidnappers of the two women and other Western nationals in the Sahel. The leader of the Operations Room, Mohamed Wardougou, is now one of Haftar’s main enemies. In an interview with Swiss Radio and Television, Wardougou confirmed the rumours that had been circulating for some time regarding the payment of a ransom by Saddam Haftar. The leader of the Operations Room said that Saddam had supplied ISWAP fighters with various weapons, including around fifty drones. These are likely to be suicide drones, which cost a few thousand euros but nevertheless represent a valuable arsenal. Wardougou explained that the kidnappers were arrested at the El Salvador Pass, a border crossing between Libya, Algeria and Niger, an area known for arms and human trafficking.

Serge Daniel, a usually well-informed Franco-Beninese journalist, has revealed that Haftar is also said to have paid a ransom of around 14 million dollars to the ISWAP kidnappers. The exact figure and the source of the money remain a mystery. Sources close to the negotiations told Swiss Radio and Television that Saddam Haftar is said to have paid at least $2.5 million out of his own pocket to settle the ransom – a figure even lower than the $14 million cited by Daniel, and one that is already considerably lower than in similar cases over the past year. The jihadists’ demands may have been lowered due to the particularly serious state of health of one of the two women. In any case, in October 2025, the United Arab Emirates had paid as much as $50 million to secure the release of Sheikh Ahmed bin Maktoum bin Juma al Maktoum, a member of the Abu Dhabi royal family who had been kidnapped in Mali by JNIM. A ransom was also paid for the American Kevin Rideout, who was abducted in Niger in October 2025 and released last August, although the amount remains unknown.

In all these cases, the common thread has been the role of Saddam Haftar as an intermediary, who capitalises on Western public opinion’s desire to secure the release of their fellow citizens, even at the cost of resorting to unscrupulous methods, such as paying ransoms and supplying weapons. Wassim Nasr, a French journalist and analyst at the Soufan Centre, has been following events in the Sahel for years and tells Il Foglio that “the most interesting way in which jihadists can spend this money today is by buying the loyalty of other armed groups, tribal leaders, criminals and traffickers. For Western governments, it is a matter of making choices,” explains Nasr. In Rideout’s case, the payment of the ransom was an exceptional instance because, for several years now, the Americans have not agreed to pay ransoms – even indirectly – to Islamic terrorists to secure the release of US citizens in the Middle East.”

As regards the source of the money spent by Haftar, the debate remains open. Some analysts, such as Jalel Harchaoui of the Royal United Services Institute, believe that the funds come from the United Arab Emirates and are made available to the Libyan leader, who then uses them to pay Malian intermediaries and the kidnappers. The Gulf state’s aim is said to be to bolster the standing of their ally Haftar in the eyes of the West. Nasr, on the other hand, is of the view “that there is no evidence of direct involvement by Abu Dhabi. Sums such as those spent to secure the release of the two women and the American hostage are well within Haftar’s means”. On the one hand, he reaps the gratitude of Western governments and establishes himself as an enemy of the Muslim Brotherhood and Islamic terrorists; on the other, he does not hesitate to finance and arm them.