The Truth: Sudan: Calculations of Deterrence and Politics..!
Ibrahim Shglawi
Since the outbreak of war on April 15, 2023, Sudan has transformed into a battlefield that goes far beyond a military confrontation between the Sudanese army and the Rapid Support Forces militia. It has become an arena of regional and international competition over influence and resources, within a shifting landscape that has redefined the balance of deterrence and sovereignty in the country. Developments have revealed that the conflict is not merely the product of domestic political tensions, but also the outcome of carefully orchestrated external schemes aimed at exhausting and fragmenting the Sudanese state. With its vast wealth of gold, oil, water, fertile lands, and livestock, Sudan has become the target not only of traditional powers but also of rising global actors, all racing to reshape the geopolitics of the Horn of Africa.
In this context, regional organizations, foremost among them the African Union, have failed to provide an objective narrative of the war. Instead, their stances have appeared ambiguous—sometimes under the banner of protecting civilians, other times in the name of supporting “democratic transition.” This weakness has created a vacuum, opening the door for external powers to expand their interventions, further complicating the crisis and reducing the space for internal solutions.
One of the key lessons of the current war is the urgent need to rebuild a national doctrine of deterrence, which cannot be realized without a unified army capable of exercising sovereign power. Recent reports of major arms deals with China, Pakistan, and Russia mark a turning point in Sudan’s deterrence strategy. The $1.5 billion agreement with Pakistan has ushered Sudan into the era of drones and advanced defense systems, while the deal with Russia reflects Khartoum’s determination to diversify its military suppliers and localize defense technologies. Together, these moves signal a strategic effort to create a regional balance of power that frees Sudan’s national decision-making from dependency.
These shifts have coincided with an increasing international presence on Sudanese soil, turning the country into a proxy arena between opposing blocs: a Saudi-Egyptian-Turkish-Pakistani axis on one side, facing an Emirati-French-Israeli axis on the other, while U.S. and Chinese interests intersect uneasily in between. This competition is further complicated by the Red Sea, Sudan’s strategic maritime depth, which is rapidly becoming a theater of intense geopolitical struggle, placing Sudan at the very heart of regional power dynamics.
External interference has not been limited to the military front. Attempts have surfaced to form a parallel government in Darfur, starting from Nyala, as part of a broader regional project to weaken the central state and entrench political fragmentation—similar to what was witnessed in Libya and Yemen. Such moves reveal that some actors view Sudan’s crisis as an opportunity to redraw regional balances by empowering artificial forces while sidelining authentic national ones.
Against this backdrop, Sudan’s possession of a genuine deterrent capacity has become a matter of existential necessity, especially given the political vulnerability inside the country. The Sudanese army has not fought this battle alone but has drawn strength from a broad national base of political and social forces. These forces played a decisive role in reclaiming Khartoum, Gezira, and Sennar, sacrificing over six thousand martyrs in battlefields stretching from the capital to Darfur and Kordofan. Despite their ideological differences, they have converged on a central goal: safeguarding Sudan’s unity and independence from external guardianship. They have emerged as a coherent national bloc—pragmatic and flexible, yet firmly anchored in the core principles of sovereignty and identity.
By contrast, certain regional and international actors are pushing for a hollow political settlement, one that seeks to float manufactured or weakened civilian groups that lack genuine grassroots support and any clear national vision. These groups compensate for their internal weakness by clinging to foreign sponsors and adopting narratives that justify siding with a militia notorious for systematic violence and abuses. This approach risks creating a distorted political landscape that undermines statehood instead of building it.
For years, the United States managed the Sudanese file through the State Department under what was termed a policy of “conditional neutrality.” Yet recent developments—including the visit of the Chairman of the Sovereignty Council to Switzerland and his meeting with a former U.S. envoy—suggest the matter has shifted to the White House’s sovereign decision-making institutions. Both the CIA and Pentagon appear to have influenced this shift after intelligence assessments highlighted the rise of the Sudanese army as a regional force backed by Russia, China, and Iran. Washington now fears that leaving Sudan unchecked could allow a new power to emerge that threatens U.S. interests in the Red Sea and Horn of Africa.
In response, Washington is attempting to strike a balance between supporting the Sudanese military institution and containing the rise of Islamist currents. Yet this approach collides with Sudan’s political reality, where Islamists are an integral part of society and politics and have been actively involved in national mobilization for the army. Here lies the challenge for Sudan’s leadership: to reconcile domestic integration with external engagement without falling into dependency. A unified national frontخ remains the strongest shield against foreign agendas, no matter how powerful.
Sudan thus stands at a crossroads: either to reclaim its destiny by establishing a balance rooted in strength, legitimacy, and national awareness, or to remain an arena exploited by external powers for their own geopolitical games. Foreign policy must therefore be built on two pillars: achieving strategic balance among global blocs, and consolidating internal unity on the basis of sovereignty and the primacy of national interest.
Military victories alone will not suffice without political resolution to reorganize the domestic arena in line with the national project rather than narrow loyalties. Building a broad national front capable of transcending false dichotomies is the only guarantee of genuine peace and democratic transition. Events have proven that betting on outsiders does not build nations. Sudan cannot be run from foreign capitals or closed meeting rooms, but only by the will of its own people, who alone hold the right to shape its future.
According to The Truth, deterrence in Sudan is no longer a purely military matter but a comprehensive political imperative that addresses the roots of the crisis and redefines Sudan’s place in the regional and international order, securing its national choices and shielding its future from manipulation under deceptive slogans.
Best regards,
Thursday, September 4, 2025
Shglawi55@gmail.com