Sudan Is The War No One Cares About

A radical brand of extreme Islamism is taking root, will likely threaten the world

Hussain Abdul-Hussain

19fortyfive

Over 150,000 dead and 11 million displaced are the result of war in Sudan that started months before the Gaza War, in 2023, and shows no sign of abating. Yet despite Sudan’s tragedy, the world dispatches no peace emissaries while most regional capitals continue to recognize a military government that Washington sanctioned, 10 days ago, for using chemical weapons against its own people.

In Sudan, there is a lot of blame to go around. Almost all warring factions have been engaged in atrocities, rape, and summary executions. The biggest rival groups are Sudan’s Armed Forces (SAF) and its once ally, now enemy, the Rapid Support Forces (RSF). Twenty years ago, the former Sudanese regime, under Islamist Omar al-Bashir, deployed both SAF and RSF against Christian rebels, in the south, and Muslim tribes, in Darfur, in the West. Christians eventually seceded from Khartoum and, in 2011, created their own state of South Sudan, with its capital Juba.

In December 2018, the Sudanese took to the streets en masse. Months later, the SAF and RSF ejected Bashir and formed a ruling council in his stead. Army chief Abdel-Fattah al-Burhan led the transitional government while RSF militia leader Muhammad Dagalo, aka Hemedti, became Burhan’s deputy. When the two men were in power, they joined the Abraham Pace Accords with Israel.

In April 2023, Burhan and Hemedti had a fall out. Civil war broke out.

Since then, America’s opponents Russia and Iran have taken the side of Burhan and his SAF. Washington’s allies – Egypt, Turkey, Saudi Arabia, Qatar and Kuwait – have also sided with the Sudanese army and its commander. Iran and Turkey have both supplied Burhan with lethal explosive drones. According to experts, Iran, Russia and Turkey hope that their alliance with SAF would secure them naval bases and ports on the Red Sea, mining deals, and arms contracts.

Only the United Arab Emirates (UAE) seems to prefer the RSF, mainly for fear of the Islamism of Burhan, his SAF, and the militias allied with him. Some have accused the UAE of arming RSF. Abu Dhabi has denied these accusations.

Meanwhile, Israel says that it has been in touch with both warring factions, SAF and RSF, using its ties to bridge the gap and broker peace.

In February, over 20 factions and political groups, including RSF, signed a charter to form a “government of peace and unity.” Among the signatories were the most credible independent civilian coalition, Tagadum, then headed by former Prime Minister Abdallah Hamdok.

Burhan, however, refused to share power, and his backers opposed the “parallel government.” Instead, Burhan appointed loyalist Kamel Idriss as prime minister and invited militias allied with SAF , especially the Baraa Bin Malik Brigades and the Furqan, to join his cabinet.

Led by Almisbah Abotalha, these brigades are notorious for their brand of radical Islamism. Even though Burhan received thenIsraeli Foreign Minister Eli Cohen, in Khartoum in February 2023, Burhan’s ally Abotalha posted on X, this past February: “We declare our full solidarity with the Palestinians against the Zionist-American plan to displace the residents of Gaza.” The Islamist militiaman added: “We warn the Western and Arab countries that support the Zionist scheme that God’s soldiers and the guardians of Al-Aqsa are waiting for you.”

Ali Karti is another alarming Islamist ally of Burhan, a man who substituted his Western suit, that he wore between 2005 and 2015 as the country’s minister of foreign affairs, with the traditional Sudanese outfit, signaling his Islamization. After the downfall of the Bashir regime, in 2019, Khartoum’s new rulers went after Karti.

But in 2021, Karti got himself elected as the chief of the Sudanese Islamic Movement and reconnected with Burhan. In September 2023, Washington slammed sanctions on Karti for his role in obstructing “ efforts to reach a ceasefire to end the current conflict between… and opposed Sudanese civilian efforts to resume Sudan’s stalled democratic transition.”

When trying to understand Sudan, the easiest way is for an observer to call it “too complicated” and move on. It is also easy to think that there are no good sides to bet on, and therefore, no good outcomes.

Yet if the world continues to ignore Sudan, it risks allowing the rise of an extremely radical Islamist movement that will likely displace the current warlords, take over the country, and turn it into a hotbed of Islamists that export terrorism, just like Afghanistan was before 2001.

It would be in America’s interest to strongarm Sudan’s warring factions, and their sponsors, to come to the table for peace talks. No one expects the Sudanese to produce a Jeffersonian democracy soon, but a political settlement that produces a power-sharing arrangement can stabilize the country and shrink the space where Islamist terrorists can grow and thrive. Such might be the best possible outcome.