In Sudan, we see foreign hands continuing to pour fuel on the flames, scorching the landscape to a precise strategic design, regardless of the millions caught in the devastation, in a slaughter hidden in plain sight.
It is hard to imagine suffering on a scale comparable to the events in Gaza over the past two years. Yet, the crisis in Sudan is every bit as severe. Estimates indicate that as many as 150,000 people have been killed, with millions more injured and displaced in what is now the world’s largest displacement crisis. [1]
Why the lack of attention?
The world’s media has not shone a spotlight on Sudan as it has on Palestine. This is partly because the conflict has been less visible on social media, and initial global media interest was captured by the events of October 7th from the perspective of “Israel”.
More fundamentally, however, the conflict in Sudan is not easy to understand. When discussed, its complexity is often obscured by simplistic narratives. By comparison, the Palestinian issue is better known.
BACKGROUND
- Due to this ongoing proxy war, since 2023 the Sudanese state has suffered a near-total collapse
- Vital infrastructure, including dams, hospitals, and water systems, has been destroyed
- Khartoum’s population plummeted from 7–9 million to about 200,000 within the first few months of the war
- Refugee camps have been repeatedly attacked and dispersed by the Rapid Support Forces (RSF)
- The situation has been compounded by severe health crises, including outbreaks of cholera, dengue fever, and malaria
- We often hear about the fight between the SAF and RSF, but key external actors are shaping the conflict with every step: the US, UK, UAE, Saudi Arabia, and Egypt
What has happened in Sudan, and why?
The roots of instability
Sudan is not merely experiencing a civil war; it has faced a meticulously managed proxy war driven by external powers seeking regional control and vast resources.
The roots of the current conflict trace back to 2019 and the fall of Omar al-Bashir. The iconic images of protest that emerged were heartening, but just as the Arab Spring alarmed illegitimate regimes in the Middle East and their Western sponsors, so did this popular uprising.
The people saw a dictator fall, but not the system. From 2019 to 2023, Sudan was governed by a turbulent power-sharing arrangement between civilian and military actors, led by General Abdel Fattah al-Burhan of the Sudanese Armed Forces (SAF) and General Mohamed Hamdan Dagalo (“Hemedti”) of the RSF.
Both men had co-operated in ousting al-Bashir, but they maintained distinct power bases and international connections. The RSF’s relationship with the state was initially co-operative but later turned adversarial, ultimately collapsing the transition and sparking armed conflict in April 2023.
The RSF’s rise was marked by allegations of atrocities. It evolved from the notorious Janjaweed (“jinn on horseback”) militias, commissioned by the Bashir regime to quell dissent in Darfur. The RSF served as the paramilitary wing of the army until it rebelled.
Orchestration of the conflict by the Quad
The war is being “managed” by a “boardroom” of foreign powers known as the Quad or Quartet, which initially included the US, UK, UAE, and Saudi Arabia, with Egypt later replacing the UK in some diplomatic efforts.
These countries are accused of prolonging the war, imposing ceasefires to interrupt SAF advances, and offering diplomatic protection to the RSF.
Sceptics might consider a few simple questions:
- Where do the arms come from, and who supplies them?
- Who decides who gets sanctioned, or who sits at the negotiating table?
The answer is that without US consent, no other party’s influence carries decisive weight. And it acts as the overall director, maintaining a balance by imposing sanctions on whichever side gains momentum. After all, the Quad’s primary interest is not peace, but containing the 2019 revolution — which they view as a continuation of the Arab Spring — to ensure Sudan remains a compliant client state.
However, the United Arab Emirates plays the most blatant role, acting as the RSF’s primary financier and armourer. It provides sophisticated drones, building on a pre-existing relationship from the war in Yemen. It opposes any rule that has genuine popular support, fearing a potentially “Islamic” government, and benefits directly from gold imports from RSF-controlled areas. [2]
The goal of this external management appears to be the partition of Sudan. Former President al-Bashir admitted that the Americans previously aimed to split the country into five states. The breakaway of South Sudan in 2011 was backed by the United States. [3]
al-Fashir was a concession to move politics forward
The recent fall of the capital of Darfur can be seen as a pivotal, politically orchestrated event. The city resisted an RSF siege for over 500 days, yet reports indicate it was handed over by the army to the RSF.
This surrender followed a meeting in Washington DC involving the Sudanese Foreign Minister and military delegates. In September 2025, the Quad agreed on a joint road map aiming for a humanitarian truce, an immediate permanent ceasefire, and a nine-month political process. The SAF’s withdrawal from al-Fashir just weeks later, and the subsequent RSF bloodbath, can therefore be seen as the first step in this imposed road map. [4]
The modern scramble for Africa
Sudan is a critical prize in the modern scramble for Africa. The country possesses abundant resources like gold and minerals, and its location is strategically vital, bordering the Nile Basin and the Red Sea coast. [5]
External involvement is not merely about resources but controlling the political transition to prevent an independent, potentially Islamic, regime from emerging. The fear is that an independent Sudan could spark a movement across the region, potentially turning the Middle East upside down.
The Quad’s strategy is a form of social engineering designed to force the Sudanese population to accept a regime compliant with foreign interests.
The path forward
The current trajectory, orchestrated by the US, aims for a final settlement that achieves the separation of Darfur, further dividing Sudan. The US intends to position itself as the “hero” who resolves the conflict, but only after the RSF has fulfilled its role.
In contrast to this foreign-imposed path, many voices are calling for an end to external interference. The desired alternative is for the Sudanese military leadership to sever all ties with foreign powers and defeat the RSF outright. This is viewed as a necessary prerequisite for a national conversation aimed at establishing a truly independent state.
For many, the only way for Sudan to heal and move past its colonial legacy is to adopt an indigenous, Islamic value-based system of governance. Such a system, established on a non-nationalistic basis, could unify the diverse population, secure resources for the people, and create a strong foundation for future stability — rather than returning Sudan to its previous state as a compliant client state.
Source: Islam21c
Notes
[2] https://www.theguardian.com/world/2025/nov/04/sudan-rsf-militia-uae-united-arab-emirates
[3] https://sudantribune.com/article/62265
[5] https://abdulwahid101010.substack.com/p/sudan-crisis-part-2-todays-scramble
