Why Rwanda Is Threatening To Stop Fighting ISIS — And What Happens if It Follows Through

Rwanda has issued a pointed ultimatum to its Western partners: Guarantee sustainable funding for its counter-terrorism mission in northern Mozambique or its troops come home. It is a threat that could hand an Islamic State affiliate breathing room in a region where tens of billions of dollars in Western energy investments are at risk.Foreign Affairs Minister Olivier Nduhungirehe made the stakes explicit in a post on X. “It’s not that ‘Rwanda could withdraw,’” he wrote. “It’s that ‘Rwanda WILL withdraw’ its troops from Mozambique, if sustainable funding is not secured for its counter-terrorism operations in Cabo Delgado.”Rwandan troops, he stressed, are “being constantly questioned, vilified, criticized, blamed or sanctioned by the very countries that benefit from our intervention in Mozambique.”A Rwandan government spokesperson, Yolande Makolo, confirmed the deployment now stands at over 6,300 troops, three times the force originally sent in 2021. She described the expansion as “a direct response to the expanded scope of operations and the necessity of filling the security vacuum left by the withdrawal” of a Southern African Development Community mission to Mozambique in 2024.A senior analyst at the Terrorism Research & Analysis Consortium, Liam Carnes-Douglas, tells The New York Sun that Rwanda’s withdrawal threat “is highly credible and should be viewed as more than just purely rhetorical signaling.” But, he says, “the country’s willingness to align itself with Western powers should not be underestimated as part of the equation.”“Rwanda has been a shrewd and self-interested body, which is entirely understandable considering its history and the complexities of the region, but it is eager to ingratiate itself with the U.S. and other Western allies, which would likely stymie any quick exits,” he says.In the short to medium term, he continues, a Rwandan withdrawal “would likely enable Islamic State Mozambique to expand freedom of movement and increase the frequency of attacks, allowing them to effortlessly seize territory.”The funding picture is sobering. European Union financial support for the operation, totaling around $44 million over 36 months, formally ended in May, with no renewal announced. Ms. Makolo said the cost of maintaining the force in Mozambique is at least 10 times the roughly $21.6 million disbursed by a dedicated fund known as the European Peace Facility.Washington has contributed even less directly to the military mission. The United Nations’ Humanitarian Needs and Response Plan for Cabo Delgado initially requested $352 million from donors for 2025. As of October, it had received just $73.2 million, of which $3.5 million came from the United States.The dismantling of USAID under President Trump’s executive order cut assistance to the region further, drastically reducing programs aimed at boosting the central government’s presence and curbing extremism.The question lingers: whose financial responsibility is it to contain the Islamic State threat?The contradictionCompounding the financial dispute is a deepening geopolitical conundrum. On March 2, the United States government announced sanctions on Rwanda’s military and four senior commanders for their support of the M23 armed group in the Democratic Republic of Congo.The Treasury Department proclaimed that the Rwanda Defense Force had been actively supporting, training, and fighting alongside M23, a group responsible for human rights abuses and mass displacement. Those sanctioned included the Defense Force’s chief of defense staff and army chief of staff — the very command structure running operations in Mozambique. Days later, the State Department imposed visa restrictions on additional senior Rwandan officials.The result is a contradiction with few clear solutions. Washington pressed Kigali over its conduct in one theater while simultaneously relying on Rwandan boots on the ground to protect billions in American energy assets in another.ExxonMobil is expected to make a final investment decision on the $30 billion Rovuma LNG project in Cabo Delgado during the second half of 2026. TotalEnergies’ neighboring $20 billion LNG project has also resumed operations after years of suspension due to the insurgency.The senior director of the Counter Extremism Project, Hans-Jakob Schindler, tells the Sun that the impasse reflects a classic policy bind.“The role of Rwanda in supporting M23 in the DRC is a negative and destructive one; on the other hand, its military support in Mozambique is constructive and needed,” Mr. Schindler says.He points out that the sanctions move appeared calibrated to leave room for reversal, targeting the entirety of the RDF but only four of its leaders, and tying the action specifically to M23 support.“This means that should the RDF cease support for M23, the sanctions move can be reversed,” he continues, while acknowledging that Washington now finds itself in the uncomfortable position of potentially relying on a sanctioned force to protect American investments.According to Mr. Carnes-Douglas, if Rwanda were to fully withdraw its forces from Cabo Delgado, the resulting security gap would likely be filled primarily by Mozambique’s national forces alongside private or corporate security actors.“However, this does not represent a long-term viable solution. Mozambican forces have already demonstrated significant limitations operating independently in the region, with insufficient troop density and persistent capability gaps constraining how effective they can be,” he explains.“Meanwhile, corporate security actors are typically restricted to static, defensive postures focused on asset protection, leaving them ill-suited to counter the mobile and adaptive tactics of Islamic State Mozambique Province.”Despite the dire public rhetoric, many analysts believe a full withdrawal is unlikely. The warning appears directed as much at the key beneficiaries of Rwanda’s presence, notably TotalEnergies, ExxonMobil, and their backers, as at Brussels or Washington.Rwanda’s presence in Mozambique has never been purely altruistic. Agreements with Mozambique, including a 2025 Status of Forces Agreement, have facilitated the entry of Rwandan-linked firms into gas-related projects in Cabo Delgado. Private security companies and construction firms connected to the ruling Rwandan Patriotic Front have moved into gas-related work there, following a pattern Rwanda previously employed in the Central African Republic.The continued ISIS threatThe insurgency itself has proven durable. On September 7 of last year, ISIS launched a renewed offensive, hitting its former stronghold of Mocimboa da Praia, beheading dozens of mostly Christian men over the course of several weeks and triggering mass displacement. More than 6,400 people have been killed since the insurgency began in 2017, and the violence has pushed more than 1.3 million from their homes. Islamic State formally acknowledged the group’s affiliation under the broader Islamic State Central Africa Province umbrella in 2019, a network that also includes the Allied Democratic Forces operating in eastern DRC.The ripple effectsMr. Schindler cautions that any reduction in military pressure would carry serious regional consequences.“A reduction in military pressure will lead to an expansion of terrorist operations and subsequently also to an expansion of their capabilities and capacities,” he asserts. “The situation in West Africa with the growth of JNIM as well as IS Sahel Province and IS West Africa Province clearly demonstrates this.”JNIM stands for al-Qaida-affiliated Jama’at Nusrat al-Islam wal-Muslimin, or the Group for the Support of Islam and Muslims.ISIS has been actively seeking opportunities to extend its footprint across sub-Saharan Africa, Mr. Schindler underscores, and any weakening of the security architecture in Cabo Delgado could provide exactly that opening.There is also suspicion among counter-terrorism analysts that the current standoff may have more to do with Rwanda’s role in eastern Congo than in Mozambique.“It is possible that the US sanctions move, the EU announcement to end funding and the threat of Rwanda to withdraw its forces are part of a hardnosed negotiation process focused on Rwanda’s relationship and support for M23 by all three sides,” Mr. Schindler observes, “and hence in the short to medium term, not much will change on the ground” in Cabo Delgado.It is almost a month since the EU funding formally lapsed at the end of May. Whether Brussels quietly extends support, Washington considers carve-outs to sanctions, or the energy majors with the most to lose start making calls, someone is going to have to pay.Mozambique’s president, Daniel Chapo, traveled to Brussels in mid-March to personally urge the EU Commission to reconsider the funding cut-off, with his foreign minister telling reporters that securing continued support for the counter-terrorism mission was a central purpose of the visit. The EU Commission said it was in “continuous dialogue” with Mozambique on security options, but declined to commit to renewed funding for the Rwandan deployment specifically, stating that the arrangement was ultimately a bilateral matter between Kigali and Maputo.The United States’ position, for now, appears firm. The Senate Foreign Relations Committee chairman, Jim Risch, was unambiguous when the sanctions landed, warning that those who violate terms brokered by the United States “will pay a steep and escalating price.”The sanctions were structured to be reversible, tied specifically to Rwanda’s conduct in the DRC. However, analysts note that Washington has shown little appetite to soften its posture while Kigali’s troops continue fighting alongside the M23.Washington has since moved to thread that needle in at least one respect: TotalEnergies and ExxonMobil have secured an exemption from American sanctions on the RDF, preserving the legal basis for the energy majors to continue relying on Rwandan protection for their Cabo Delgado assets. With EU funding having formally lapsed and no institutional replacement secured, French officials and TotalEnergies are now actively seeking arrangements to keep Rwanda’s mission alive — a sign that the energy majors with the most to lose have begun making exactly those calls. The picture on the ground, nonetheless, is still murky. On May 26, Rwanda’s foreign minister said Mozambique had secured sufficient funds for the RDF to continue and that the deployment would remain in place. That claim was swiftly contradicted by diplomatic sources in East Africa, who indicated that RDF troops are owed more than $20 million in unpaid costs by Mozambique — suggesting the mission’s continuity is less settled than Kigali’s public posture suggests. “Whether such attempts would ultimately be successful will, of course, depend on the future developments of the security arrangements in the province, and therefore, at this point, it is hard to predict,” Mr. Schindler says.

Why Rwanda Is Threatening To Stop Fighting ISIS — And What Happens if It Follows Through

More from the New York Sun

Fauci’s Refusal To Answer Questions Matches Hubris of America’s Botched Covid Response

America Risks Falling Behind Communist China in the AI Development Race

State Department Tells Americans To Prepare To Flee From Middle East

More from the New York Sun

Fauci’s Refusal To Answer Questions Matches Hubris of America’s Botched Covid Response

America Risks Falling Behind Communist China in the AI Development Race

State Department Tells Americans To Prepare To Flee From Middle East

Trump Threatens to Revive Anti-Weaponization Fund as Blanche Nomination Stalls

Spain Claims Ceuta Crisis Easing, With Most Migrants Already Returned to Morocco

George Santos Agrees to $35,000 To Settle Federal Probe Over Kalshi Trades

Infantino Abandons Kushner Deal But Fails To Halt Global FIFA Uprising

Trump Lashes Out at Pirro Over Dropped Reflecting Pool Case: ‘I Disagree 100%’