• Research
  • Strategic Europe
  • About
  • Experts
Carnegie Europe logoCarnegie lettermark logo
EUUkraine
  • Donate
{
  "authors": [
    "Stephen Tankel"
  ],
  "type": "legacyinthemedia",
  "centerAffiliationAll": "dc",
  "centers": [
    "Carnegie Endowment for International Peace"
  ],
  "collections": [],
  "englishNewsletterAll": "ctw",
  "nonEnglishNewsletterAll": "",
  "primaryCenter": "Carnegie Endowment for International Peace",
  "programAffiliation": "SAP",
  "programs": [
    "South Asia"
  ],
  "projects": [],
  "regions": [
    "North America",
    "United States",
    "South Asia",
    "Pakistan"
  ],
  "topics": [
    "Security",
    "Military",
    "Foreign Policy"
  ]
}

Source: Getty

In The Media

Who is Hafiz Saeed and Why the $10 Million Bounty?

Hafiz Saeed, the head of the Pakistani militant organization Lashkar-e-Taiba, has emerged as a powerful player in the region and has the potential to cause significant tensions in the U.S.-Pakistani relationship.

Link Copied
By Stephen Tankel
Published on Apr 5, 2012

Source: Christian Science Monitor

The US has put a $10 million bounty on Pakistani extremist Hafiz Muhammad Saeed. To understand more about Mr. Saeed, the Monitor put five questions to Stephen Tankel, professor at American University, non-resident scholar at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, and author of "Storming the World Stage: The Story of Lashkar-e-Taiba."

1.Who is Hafiz Muhammad Saeed?

"[Hafiz Muhammad] Saeed is the leader of Jamaat-ul-Dawa (JuD), a religious organization in Pakistan widely known to be the social welfare wing of the militant group Lashkar-e-Taiba (LeT). LeT is considered to be among the most powerful and prolific militant organizations in South Asia. It rose to prominence fighting in Indian-administered Kashmir and is responsible for the 2008 Mumbai attacks [which killed more than 160 people] than as well as a number of others against India.  Since roughly 2005, it has sent fighters to Afghanistan as well.

From its founding through late 2001, [Mr.] Saeed openly led LeT and its social welfare wing, which used to go by another name. In advance of a pending ban on LeT its social welfare wing ostensibly split off and was renamed JuD. The group’s leaders claimed the two wings were entirely separate entities, but in reality LeT and JuD are still two sides of the same coin. Most experts agree Saeed remains the overall head of both.

There is debate about how hands-on a role he plays in LeT’s militant operations. My sense is that he plays a strategic role and has some input on important operational matters, but is not managing militant operations on a day-to-day basis."

2.Why did the US put the bounty on him now, years after Mumbai?

"The precise impetus for the bounty remains unclear. It’s certainly the case that the US has been more concerned about the potential threats LeT poses since Mumbai.

And it is possible additional evidence came to light that spurred this action. Specifically, some reports suggest that evidence collected from Osama bin Laden’s Abbottabad compound during the 2011 raid in which he was killed suggested he had been in touch with Saeed regularly. LeT’s precise relationship with Al Qaeda remains the subject of significant debate, but if true then this might have spurred the US government to take this action.

In some respects, the more important question is what the US hopes to accomplish. Given that Saeed is not difficult to locate, it is possible this was intended to signal the seriousness of US concerns to Pakistan and pressure it to rein in Saeed (and through him LeT) via a practice of naming and shaming. This decision also might have been taken in an attempt to put pressure on the group directly."

3.What evidence exists that Lashkar-e-Taiba poses a threat to the US?

"LeT possesses transnational networks that have included operatives based in the US and Europe and a robust training infrastructure in Pakistan, where it still operates relatively freely. So there is pretty broad agreement that it has the capabilities to strike US targets not only in South Asia but also further afield.

The debate revolves around its intention to do so. LeT is not ideologically opposed to launching a terrorist attack against the US, but it is viewed as focused primarily on regional issues, subject to pressure by the Pakistani military to remain so, and fearful of inviting US retaliation.

The problem is that LeT’s leaders or factions within the group could decide to push the envelope, which is a concern that rose significantly following its decision to strike Western targets during the 2008 Mumbai attacks. The fact that LeT’s presence in Afghanistan has grown over the past several years only adds to fears that it is moving in a more global direction."

4.Saeed gave a press conference near military headquarters. Why does Pakistan protect him?

"To begin with, the Pakistani security establishment continues to view LeT as its most reliable proxy against India and the group also plays a small, but important, role in Afghanistan. LeT is also one of the few groups built up by Pakistan's military and its Inter-Service Intelligence Directorate (ISI) for use against India during the 1990s that has not splintered or turned against the Pakistani state.

Recently, the Pakistani military and ISI have begun using LeT in Afghanistan and against some of those insurgents attacking the state as well as employing the group in its traditional role as a proxy against India.

In addition to wanting to avoid losing the benefits LeT provides, there are significant concerns that attempting to dismantle the group could lead it to fragment and turn its guns on Pakistan.

The aim, instead, is to control LeT to the degree possible. Maintaining Saeed in a position of power is considered to be an essential component of doing so. He has led the organization since it was founded in 1986, commands respect from significant quarters within the group, and is viewed as generally reliable by the Pakistan military and ISI.

Finally, although JuD's favorability ratings are not high throughout Pakistan, it does possess a fair amount of suasion in Punjab Province where it has penetrated pockets of the population as a result of its provision of social welfare and the support it receives from the Pakistani establishment."

5. How big an irritant could Saeed become in US-Pakistan relations?

"Saeed has emerged as one of the most vehement opponents of reopening NATO ground supply lines through Pakistan for forces in Afghanistan. The polarizing invective Saeed and his cohorts, both hyper-nationalist and jihadist, are peddling makes it more difficult for those in Pakistan seeking to repair relations with the US. As for how great an irritant he has the potential to become, Pakistan is unlikely to take significant and lasting action against him in the near term and so much of that depends on how LeT evolves and how the US responds. But it’s already clear that in the last few days he’s become a much greater irritant than anyone would have expected."

This article originally appeared in The Christian Science Monitor.

About the Author

Stephen Tankel

Former Nonresident Scholar, South Asia Program

Tankel was a nonresident scholar at the Carnegie Endowment, where his research focuses on insurgency, terrorism, and the evolution of nonstate armed groups.

    Recent Work

  • Q&A
    Restoring Trust: U.S.-Pakistan Relations

      Stephen Tankel

  • Q&A
    LeT’s Global Rise

      Stephen Tankel

Stephen Tankel
Former Nonresident Scholar, South Asia Program
Stephen Tankel
SecurityMilitaryForeign PolicyNorth AmericaUnited StatesSouth AsiaPakistan

Carnegie does not take institutional positions on public policy issues; the views represented herein are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of Carnegie, its staff, or its trustees.

More Work from Carnegie Europe

  • Commentary
    Strategic Europe
    Taking the Pulse: Is it NATO’s Job to Support Trump’s War of Choice?

    Donald Trump has demanded that European allies send ships to the Strait of Hormuz while his war of choice in Iran rages on. He has constantly berated NATO while the alliance’s secretary-general has emphatically supported him.

      • Rym Momtaz

      Rym Momtaz, ed.

  • Commentary
    Strategic Europe
    Time to Merge the Commission and EEAS

    The EU is structurally incapable of reacting to today’s foreign policy crises. The union must fold the EEAS into the European Commission and create a security council better prepared to take action on the global stage.

      Stefan Lehne

  • Commentary
    Strategic Europe
    Russia’s Imperial Retreat Is Europe’s Strategic Opportunity

    The war in Ukraine is costing Russia its leverage overseas. Across the South Caucasus and Middle East, this presents an opportunity for Europe to pick up the pieces and claim its own sphere of influence.

      William Dixon, Maksym Beznosiuk

  • Commentary
    Is the Radical-Right Threat Existential or Overstated?

    Amid increased polarization and the influence of disinformation, radical-right parties are once again gaining traction across Europe. With landmark elections on the horizon in several countries, are the EU’s geostrategic vision and fundamental values under existential threat?

      Catherine Fieschi, Cas Mudde

  • Research
    Planetary vs International Security: Economic Growth at the Crossroads

    Economic growth is at the heart of a dilemma between planetary and international security.

      Olivia Lazard

Get more news and analysis from
Carnegie Europe
Carnegie Europe logo, white
Rue du Congrès, 151000 Brussels, Belgium
  • Research
  • Strategic Europe
  • About
  • Experts
  • Projects
  • Events
  • Contact
  • Careers
  • Privacy
  • For Media
  • Gender Equality Plan
Get more news and analysis from
Carnegie Europe
© 2026 Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. All rights reserved.