The Hidden Threads of War in Sudan

The scale of foreign intervention in Sudan's ongoing conflict is no longer a matter of speculation. It has been documented in numerous official international reports and major media investigations, while the Sudanese government has repeatedly raised the issue, submitting reports and complaints to the United Nations Security Council accompanied by photographs and documentary evidence alleging the continued flow of weapons and foreign fighters to the Rapid Support Forces (RSF). Yet international reactions have remained limited, falling far short of the measures necessary to halt external interference and stem the flow of arms and mercenaries, as geopolitical interests have consistently taken precedence.

Yesterday's Reuters investigation into a fleet of Boeing 727 aircraft allegedly linked to the business network of a retired American military contractor—and reportedly used to transport mercenaries, weapons, and drones to the RSF—serves as further confirmation of earlier reports by Reuters itself, as well as investigations conducted by international news agencies, research institutions, and global organizations. Those reports, supported by documentary evidence and satellite imagery, have highlighted the scale of external involvement, identified the parties engaged in it, and documented the role played by some neighboring countries as transit corridors for military supplies and logistical hubs for training operations.

The new element in Reuters' latest report is its reference to a draft United Nations report scheduled for publication next September. According to Reuters, the draft contains additional details supported by credible intelligence, eyewitness testimony from Nyala, and official correspondence from two governments regarding the transfer of military equipment—including drones—as well as the movement of mercenaries and fighters affiliated with the RSF. The draft report reportedly states that the aircraft departed from the military section of N'Djamena International Airport and adopted "deliberate measures to avoid detection during flight," including concealing takeoff and landing routes while evading the Sudanese Air Force, which had been conducting strikes against weapons depots and had previously announced the destruction of aircraft at Nyala Airport allegedly transporting military equipment and RSF fighters.

Although the new report—prepared by the United Nations Panel of Experts mandated by the Security Council to monitor the arms embargo imposed on Darfur since 2005—adds significantly to the growing body of documented evidence regarding foreign intervention, it is unlikely to produce a fundamental shift in international policy or lead to meaningful punitive measures against those involved. The reason lies in the intricate web of regional and international interests surrounding the Sudanese crisis, which has largely neutralized the political will required to halt these interventions.

Against this backdrop, particular attention has been drawn to a recent interview given by Sheikh Musa Hilal, Chairman of the Awakening Council and leader of the Mahamid tribe, to Sudan's Al-Balad television channel. In the interview, Hilal made a number of noteworthy claims regarding the nature of the current conflict, arguing that efforts to destabilize Sudan, fragment the country, and separate Darfur from the Sudanese state are not new developments.

Hilal recounted a meeting in Nyala in 2006 with a former U.S. Special Envoy to Sudan, who allegedly offered financial assistance under the banner of development projects in Darfur. According to Hilal, the proposal was, in reality, part of a broader plan presented to him and other tribal leaders aimed at encouraging the Rizeigat tribe to rebel against the Sudanese state, with the ultimate objective of breaking the country into multiple political entities.

This account is particularly significant because it is situated in the period following the signing of the Comprehensive Peace Agreement (CPA) in 2005 between the Sudanese government and the Sudan People's Liberation Movement (SPLM) led by John Garang. That agreement paved the way for the self-determination referendum in South Sudan, culminating in the country's independence in 2011. According to this interpretation, the international actors that supported and encouraged South Sudan's secession were simultaneously seeking to replicate a similar model in Darfur.

This perspective also intersects with statements made by retired U.S. General and former NATO Supreme Allied Commander Wesley Clark in 2003 and 2007. Clark said that he had seen a memorandum outlining an American strategy to reshape the Middle East in the aftermath of the September 11 attacks, targeting several countries, including Sudan, Iraq, Syria, and Lebanon.

Proponents of this view also cite a lecture delivered in 2007 by former Israeli Minister of Public Security Avi Dichter, in which he outlined Israel's strategic vision for dealing with the region across seven principal arenas, including Sudan, Egypt, Palestine, Lebanon, and Iraq. According to the lecture, the strategy encompassed a range of policy options, from the use of military force and diplomacy to fostering instability, exploiting internal divisions, and cultivating relationships with ethnic groups, sectarian actors, and opposition movements willing to cooperate in exchange for support in attaining political power.

When asked why Sudan occupied such a prominent place within this strategic framework, Dichter reportedly referred—after discussing Israel's involvement in South Sudan and Darfur—to long-standing Israeli strategic assessments dating back to the 1950s. Those assessments, he argued, concluded that Sudan, given its vast territory, abundant natural resources, and sizeable population, should not be allowed to emerge as a major regional power capable of altering the strategic balance in the Middle East or posing a future challenge to Israel.

Taken together, the evidence presented in international reports documenting the scale and nature of foreign intervention in Sudan, alongside the accounts of contemporary witnesses and former officials and political figures, sheds light on dimensions of the current conflict that many observers prefer to overlook. These accounts point to an enduring connection between today's war and longstanding projects aimed at weakening, fragmenting, and ultimately partitioning the Sudanese state.

Originally published in Asharq Al-Awsat.