The Stage of Shadows in Sudan’s War…

Face of Truth | Ibrahim Shaglawi

In a notable development, the United Nations Security Council on Tuesday imposed sanctions on Al-Qouni Hamdan Dagalo and three Colombian mercenaries, over roles in arming the Rapid Support Forces militia and recruiting foreign fighters, in a move led by the United States, Britain, and France. This step comes amid a raging war since April 2023, described by the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, Volker Türk, as being waged by proxy on behalf of external parties driven by the pursuit of Sudan’s resources.

In this article, we approach the implications of the decision by unpacking the real weight of Al-Qouni Hamdan, and the extent of his influence within financing and arms networks, as an entry point to reading the hidden structure that runs the “shadow theater” of this war in Sudan.

According to reports from UN sources and Reuters, the Security Council’s sanctions committee has listed Al-Qouni Hamdan Dagalo, responsible for procurement within the Rapid Support Forces, along with three Colombian nationals, on the sanctions list, on charges related to recruiting and transporting foreign fighters and contributing to the escalation of the conflict.

The measures included travel bans and asset freezes, within the framework of the Darfur sanctions committee mechanisms.

But behind this measure, the more realistic question remains beyond the limits of the decision: do these sanctions reflect the true centers of power within the war, or do they merely target the visible faces on the stage, while behind the scenes more influential roles are played by multiple actors—local, regional, and international?

It is known that Al-Qouni Dagalo has been linked to the supply and arms procurement file through commercial networks and economic fronts believed to provide logistical and military support to the militia.

However, this role does not necessarily mean he is a decision-making center; rather, it reveals that this war is not managed by a single entity, but through a network of actors whose roles are distributed according to overlapping interests rather than unified command.

This is what makes sanctions, in appearance, target specific individuals, while in essence they are expected to reach a broader network of actors that is difficult to fully grasp in one sweep. In such conflicts, the concept of the “individual actor” recedes in favor of what is known as the “networked actor,” where roles are distributed between financing, recruitment, transport, logistical support, political backing, and media influence, making it difficult to separate planners from executors, or managers from the managed.

International reports indicate that the war in Sudan is no longer confined within its geographic borders, but has become part of a regional network in which economic interests, arms smuggling routes, and the movement of fighters through intermediaries and private companies intersect.

This shift reflects a transformation of the conflict from a traditional confrontation into a hybrid structure where geography, economics, and political influence overlap.
In this context, the recruitment of foreign fighters, including elements from Latin America, or arms supplies, is considered an indicator of the involvement of multiple parties, according to international reports.

This expansion goes beyond the individual capacities attributed to Al-Qouni Hamdan, reinforcing the idea that what is happening cannot be reduced to one person, but is the product of complex networks in which financing, coordination, and decision-making roles intersect. In this sense, military power is no longer the monopoly of regular armies, but has been entered by intermediary states that have reshaped the structure of war.

However, the path of international sanctions often moves toward the most visible fronts, while the underlying structures remain outside direct targeting. This reflects the limitation of an approach that focuses on individuals without dismantling the networks that produce action. In this context, investigations and reports point to transnational networks in which financing, recruitment, and transport operations intersect, reflecting the expansion of influence beyond the Sudanese framework, and the transformation of the crisis into a highly complex regional and international file.

Within this framework, references to the regional and international dimension are no longer merely political readings, but are supported by reports documenting direct support routes to the conflict through neighboring regional spaces. Published materials in several reputable media outlets indicate overlapping logistical and support routes attributed to roles extending from the UAE to Uganda through South Sudan, alongside other reports on the use of Ethiopian border areas as transit points, confirming the war’s expansion beyond Sudanese geography and the widening of its operational scope.

Taken together, these indicators do not provide a final judgment, but they reveal a “back space” in which interests intersect and through which war resources move, further fueling the conflict.

In this scene, according to #Face_of_Truth, these sanctions, despite their political significance, appear closer to managing the complexity of the crisis rather than dismantling its foundational structure. They touch visible actors, while the most influential centers of gravity remain outside the frame. Thus, the name of Al-Qouni Hamdan appears only as a signal within a broader system in which roles are distributed behind the curtain, in what can be described as a “shadow theater” where politics and economics intertwine, and where war is reproduced in the backstage.

Be well and in good health.

Saturday, May 2, 2026
Shglawi55@gmail.