Face of Truth: El Fasher Redesigns the Scene and Reorders the Cards..!

Ibrahim Shaglawi

The fall of El Fasher, the capital of North Darfur State, was not merely a military event in the course of the war, but a defining moment that reshuffled the cards and triggered a new political movement both domestically and regionally.

The city, which withstood siege for more than a year and repelled over 270 successive attacks, has today become a national symbol embodying both the tragedy of war and the epic of resilience — as confirmed by President Al-Burhan in his address to the Sudanese people yesterday.

No matter how many try to frame what happened within notions of victory or defeat, the truth is that El Fasher inaugurated a new chapter in Sudan’s political — and perhaps social — equation, titled: Redesigning the Scene and Reordering the Cards.

What happened in El Fasher represented a pivotal moment that confused internal dynamics and forced the region to recalculate. The city, a historical symbol of Darfur and a social and religious center, has become a political and humanitarian compass exposing the conspiracy of the international community and the clashing foreign agendas competing over Sudan’s land.

What made the difference in the Battle of El Fasher was not only the intensity of the fighting, but the collective consciousness of its people. The long resistance under siege, and the refusal to surrender despite severe shortages, have revived rare values in Sudan’s national discourse during wartime — sacrifice, dignity, and the determination to preserve the state.

Yet, the prolonged battle revealed that the military tactics employed in the city’s defense were not matched by sufficient political pressure to save it — highlighting the need for a comprehensive political solution that transcends battlefield calculations and embraces a new approach.

Today, El Fasher represents a miniature image of Sudan, where Darfur’s diverse components intersect — urban and rural, governance and statehood. Its fall is therefore not just a battle, but a test of Sudanese identity. Any delay in protecting civilians or opening humanitarian corridors will translate politically into a loss of moral and international legitimacy for any party involved.

The conflicting statements that followed the battles, and the accelerated international and regional reactions — particularly from the United States and the Quad — revealed that the war has exceeded its local scope to become a testing ground for regional and international balances.

Statements by President Biden’s Senior Advisor for African Affairs, Mossad Bolus, calling for “immediate action to protect civilians,” reflected Washington’s awareness of the fragile humanitarian situation. Yet, they also placed its diplomatic support on the scales of political pressure upon both the army and the militia — perhaps showing a veiled satisfaction, as this may hasten implementation of the Quad’s plan for a three-month truce followed by negotiations under its framework.

Since the outbreak of the war, the International Quad — the United States, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, and the United Arab Emirates — has sought to craft a political path to end the fighting and establish a transitional phase according to its vision. However, the balance of interests among its members has remained fragile:

The United States focuses on maintaining its regional influence, protecting civilians, and restoring civilian rule, while remaining wary of the militia’s expansion.

Saudi Arabia and Egypt have sought to play mediating roles through the “Jeddah Platform,” maintaining a delicate balance between their ties with Sudan’s government and their regional commitments.

The UAE — the fourth corner of this equation — is implicated in politically and logistically supporting the rebel militia, which has eroded the Sudanese government’s trust in the Quad and weakened the effectiveness of the Jeddah framework as a negotiation platform.

This contradiction has made El Fasher a testing ground for the Quad: can it preserve its unity of stance, or will it become an umbrella that deepens regional division? In other words, the war in Sudan — particularly the Battle of El Fasher — has become a measure of the international community’s credibility in moving beyond the policy of “managing chaos” that has led to similar collapses elsewhere, such as in Libya and Yemen.

Notably, on the eve of El Fasher’s events, Port Sudan hosted a visit by Germany’s Minister of State for Foreign Affairs, Serap Güler, who called for an immediate end to the war and the implementation of the Quad’s peace plan leading to civilian transition. She announced an additional €16 million in humanitarian aid, describing the situation as “horrific,” condemning attacks on civilians and the use of sexual violence, and demanding the immediate lifting of the siege.

For his part, Sovereign Council Chairman General Abdel Fattah Al-Burhan briefed the minister on the government’s position regarding the “violations” committed by the Rapid Support Militia, affirming the importance of Germany’s role in persuading involved parties to end the war.

Despite the bleak outlook, a genuine window for peace has begun to open, driven by two main factors:

First: the exhaustion of the state and economic deterioration. After nearly three years of war, it has become clear that Khartoum needs a new approach. Prolonged battles — such as that of El Fasher — drain both resources and the state itself, compelling all parties, even out of pragmatism, to seek an honorable political exit.

Second: the shifting regional mood. Some capitals — even those that supported militias — have begun reassessing their positions, fearing that Darfur could turn into a cross-border chaos zone that threatens their economic and security interests and damages their image.

In light of these developments, Sudan is entering a stage of political repositioning that may yield surprises in the coming period. The scene is moving toward a new transitional formula — perhaps in the form of a National Leadership Council or a broad-based civilian government — that reflects a new internal balance imposed by evolving realities.

This is not a settlement in the traditional sense, but rather a re-engineering of the state itself: a consensus must form around a single army, a unified leadership, and justice uncompromising on spilled blood. Sudanese society no longer accepts guardianship, nor does it trust intermediaries.

In this sense, Sudan after El Fasher is heading toward independence — not only from foreign influence, but from the mindset of political quotas that has exhausted the nation since independence.

All these indicators highlight the need for a new national approach that preserves the unity of the country and lays the groundwork for a comprehensive political solution through an all-Sudanese dialogue that places the homeland’s interest above all.

If this process begins swiftly, the Quad itself will find it necessary to reposition in order to safeguard its long-term interests in Sudan and the Horn of Africa.

For El Fasher’s resilience to become an opportunity for peace, a realistic national path must be established — one based on mutual recognition among political forces, away from exclusion and accusations of treason — with justice remaining open and depoliticized.

This must be coupled with gradual security arrangements ensuring the withdrawal of militias from cities and disarmament under a purely national plan managed by legitimate authorities.

Additionally, a comprehensive Sudanese Conference for Peace and Development should be convened — founded on local community representation rather than partisan or regional quotas.

Moreover, a responsible regional engagement under a legitimate umbrella is needed — one that withdraws Sudan’s files from contradictory intermediaries and transfers them to a new, credible mechanism that respects national sovereignty.

According to #Face_of_Truth, El Fasher has not fallen in the historical sense of the word — rather, it has toppled the illusion of cross-border agendas. It has proven that Sudan, despite its wounds, still possesses a national immunity upon which a sustainable settlement can be built — if political will exists and the parties free themselves from foreign dependency.

Wishing you all safety and well-being.

Tuesday, October 28, 2025

Shglawi55@gmail.com