Sudan’s Islamists Remain a Major Obstacle to Peace
The conflict in Sudan is complicated by the resurgence of Islamist factions, which complicates peace efforts. Recent US sanctions on Abdel-Fattah al-Burhan’s government underscore the challenges in negotiations. The alliance between the SAF and Islamist militias undermines civil society and democratic movements, and concerns over use of chemical weapons persist as violence escalates.
In Sudan, finding a solution to the ongoing armed conflict is proving to be a difficult task—much more than simply rhetoric and finger-pointing. The recent imposition of US sanctions against Sudan’s government, led by Abdel-Fattah al-Burhan, for deploying chemical weapons, adds complexity to efforts aiming to foster dialogue among conflicting parties. The challenge is not only regional but deeply rooted within the warring factions themselves.
The fighting that exploded since 2018 has intensified ideological divides and pushed civil society to the margins. Islamist groups have regained strength militarily, embedding themselves firmly within crucial state structures. Their rising influence has forged stronger connections with Iran and created openings for al-Qaeda and the Islamic State, ultimately complicating any potential peace negotiations.
International attention is largely directed toward the atrocities committed by Sudanese Armed Forces (SAF) and affiliated jihadists, particularly in Khartoum, which has seen escalating battles. The outcome of the conflict between the SAF and the Rapid Support Forces (RSF) could have significant ramifications across East Africa, especially as jihadist movements seem to gain momentum. SAF leader Abdel-Fattah al-Burhan, whose actions have prompted US sanctions for targeting civilians, is reportedly collaborating with Islamist factions vying for future state control. However, the dynamics of their leadership relationships are muddled at best.
Events and alliances emerging within this conflict indicate that al-Burhan’s rise to power was facilitated by the Islamist factions, particularly militia groups closely tied to the Sudanese Islamic Movement. Key players include the Al-Bara’ ibn Malik Brigade and the Sudan Shield Forces—both militias facing accusations of crimes against civilians. Those leading these groups were instrumental in forming the Islamic Military Organization within Sudan’s military and security framework. Since the December Revolution, an alarming spread of around 20 armed militias fighting alongside SAF highlights the threat posed by these militias, particularly with concerns about potential access to chemical weapons as their influence grows.
The relationship between the SAF and Islamist groups is characterized by mutual dependence. The military relies on these factions for religious legitimacy and skilled technocrats. These young, educated affiliates within the Islamist movement have provided expertise in sectors like banking, judiciary, and trade, ensuring the Islamists’ grip on power remains intact. Moreover, their influence has seeped into Sudan’s foreign policy, tightening bonds with Iran.
This delicate balance between army factions and militias is crucial in countering pro-democracy movements, but it stands on shaky ground. This interdependence is manifesting in the SAF’s reluctance to engage in peace talks as both al-Burhan’s supporters within the military capitalize on the ongoing discord to foster an environment of political instability that favors a return to Islamist-military governance. The implications of President Trump’s prior praise for an individual under US sanctions only serve to embolden such factions, creating expectations that might lead to easing sanctions and legitimizing hardline Islamist governance in Sudan.
The ongoing conflict in Sudan appears increasingly intertwined with the resurgence of Islamist factions within state structures. The SAF, under al-Burhan, faces significant challenges to peace talks and stability, as these groups strengthen their grip on power and influence. Moreover, the fragile balance between the army and militias continues to pose risks, not just to internal governance but also regionally, as the potential for further violence looms. Worryingly, international responses may inadvertently reinforce these dynamics rather than promote lasting peace.
Original Source: www.eurasiareview.com
