CounterPunch Exclusives

CounterPunch Exclusives

Sudan Defies Simple Explanations

Image Source: ElijahPepe – Own work, derivate of Template:2023 Sudanese Clashes detailed map This is a retouched picture, which means that it has been digitally altered from its original version. The original can be viewed here: Sudan adm location map.svg – CC BY-SA 4.0

There is now strong evidence of closer ties between the Sudanese Armed Forces (SAF) and Iran. Yet almost every aspect of it is still disputed. Some of the wilder claims such as Iran wanting a permanent naval base on Sudan’s Red Sea coast remain unconfirmed.

Claims of chemical-weapons use by the SAF in its war against the Rapid Support Forces (RSF) show something similar in a different way. In 2025, the United States said that it had identified the use of chemical weapons by the Sudanese government in 2024 and announced sanctions in response. Yet Washington did not publish any of the evidence behind its decision, Sudan denied the accusation, and the allegations have not been put to a full independent international investigation, though lonely voices are still calling for one.

There is definitely a pattern here. Claims and allegations emerge, attract attention for a while, and then fade into bitterness, secrecy and a kind of geopolitical distraction. The problem is not that nothing is known. Rather, access, accounts and interests make it hard to separate the established from the uncertain.

Most days I try to read something on Sudan. Yesterday a friend sent me a line that he believed may have been used about MI6’s struggle to accept Philby was a Soviet spy: “Where simple but unpalatable truths are washed away.” It seemed to capture perfectly Sudan. The country has a habit of frustrating simple explanations.

Yet even that is only part of it. Beneath the military narratives, Sudan has a robust alternative civilian movement. Somoud, one of its principal political coalitions, campaigns regularly for human rights, democratic reform and an inclusive political settlement. It recently described itself as “one legitimate strand within a genuinely inclusive political process.”

I know Sudan only from the margins, but well enough to recognise names whenever another crisis unfolds. I’ve been fortunate enough to meet some of the civilian leaders while travelling across East Africa. I have attended memorable and vigorous discussions at Chatham House and SOAS, University of London. I have even had a documentary on Sudan fully funded—until, suddenly, it wasn’t.

I remember sitting through one discussion in Nairobi where there was broad agreement as to why Sudan had collapsed. By the end, however, there was no consensus on what, if anything, could be done to stop the fighting. It struck me, there and then, that Sudan had this unique ability to produce agreement on the diagnosis but only paralysis over the treatment.

The same pattern has shaped international reactions to its rapprochement with Iran. Diplomatic ties between Tehran and the SAF-led authorities were restored in October 2023 after a gap of nearly eight years. Coming only months after the civil war began, the move represented a major shift in foreign policy. Yet it remains unclear whether this was the start of a deeper strategic partnership or simply a wartime........

© CounterPunch