Sudan’s ongoing conflict is complicated by the resurgence of Islamist groups allied with the military, hindering peace initiatives. Recent U.S. sanctions target the regime for chemical weapon use while civil society is marginalized. As tensions rise, the balance of power between the SAF and Islamist factions poses significant risks for regional stability and potential future negotiations on peace.
The complex and brutal conflict in Sudan, which has been ongoing since 2018, is further complicated by the resurgence of Islamists. Recent U.S. sanctions targeting the Sudanese government led by Abdel-Fattah al-Burhan over the use of chemical weapons are just one layer of a multifaceted issue. Efforts to mediate talks among the warring factions often go unmet since they hinge not only on regional interests but largely on the warring parties themselves.
As the ideological divide deepens in Sudan, civil society finds itself increasingly marginalized. The military strength and influence of Islamist factions have burgeoned, leveraging deep ties with the state and regional allies like Iran. This rise of Islamists obstructs any meaningful peace talks, especially as jihadist organizations such as al-Qaeda and the Islamic State gain ground amid the chaos.
International focus remains trained on the violence perpetrated by the Sudanese Armed Forces (SAF) and its associated jihadists, especially as conflict spills over in the capital, Khartoum. This is a critical moment for East Africa, considering how the continuing strife could empower jihadist groups. Al-Burhan’s SAF is under scrutiny for atrocities against civilians, but the power dynamics within the Islamist factions themselves remain murky. Who’s truly at the helm in this collaboration is up for debate.
The relations between al-Burhan and Islamist factions are characterized by mutual utility. His ascent has been facilitated by the institutional support from Islamists, particularly from their militias known as the “shadow battalions.” Groups like the Al-Bara’ ibn Malik Brigade and Sudan Shield Forces emerge as major players, corroborated by reports of their involvement in abuses against civilians. These militias’ ties to both the SAF and the broader Islamic Military Organization in Sudan only further entrench their role in the conflict.
With concerns that these Islamist militias might gain access to chemical weapons grow, the situation is alarmingly precarious. The SAF’s relationship with Islamic militants is not merely tactical. It provides religious legitimacy to the army while supplying experienced technocrats across various sectors, solidifying the Islamist presence within state institutions and foreign policy, particularly towards Iran.
This delicate equilibrium between the SAF and the militias is critical; it acts as a bulwark against pro-democracy forces. The military’s refusal to engage in peace negotiations is seen as an act to prolong the conflict, sustaining their power in the face of mounting opposition. Al-Burhan’s supporters in the SAF appear to exploit these disputes to foster an atmosphere ripe for a return to a rule dominated by Islamists and the military.
In a broader context, there are grave concerns regarding messages inadvertently sent by international players. For instance, President Trump’s past positive remarks about a U.S. sanctioned terrorist could inadvertently legitimize violence as a means to gain power. The overarching narrative suggests that sanctions might only increase pressure on al-Burhan while potentially establishing an Islamist state in Sudan, complicating the path forward for peace and stability in the region.
Sudan’s peace efforts are significantly hampered by the resurgence of Islamist factions that have allied with the military under Abdel-Fattah al-Burhan. The ideological divide continues to widen, marginalizing civil society while creating a dangerous landscape enabled by regional power dynamics. With U.S. sanctions tied to military actions and Islamist cooperation, the future of peace remains as uncertain as ever. Broader implications for East Africa and worries over potential Islamist empowerment heighten concerns of a protracted conflict that undermines democratic ambitions.
Original Source: www.eurasiareview.com
