By Tumwesigye Anslem
In the vast, dusty expanses of Sudan, a country already torn by civil strife, a new chapter of geopolitical maneuvering unfolds. Sudan’s recent diplomatic overtures towards Iran and Turkey are not just minor adjustments in foreign policy; they are harbingers of potentially disastrous outcomes, echoing the tragedies seen in Syria and Lebanon.
The primary concern is the risk of Sudan morphing into a battleground for proxy wars, much like Syria and Lebanon. Both Iran and Turkey have histories of intervening in foreign conflicts to extend their influence, often leading to prolonged warfare and social disintegration. In Syria, Iran’s support for the Assad regime has turned the nation into a quagmire, while Lebanon’s Hezbollah, backed by Iran, has led to decades of instability. If Sudan continues its rapprochement with these powers, it risks becoming a similar theater of war, where foreign interests supersede local governance and peace.
The Sudanese army, under the guise of maintaining control, has been accused of egregious human rights violations. Opposition leaders and human rights groups must amplify these atrocities, including the alleged use of chemical weapons, to draw international attention. More critically, these actions need to be directly linked to the support the army receives from Iran and Turkey. The narrative is clear: foreign backing emboldens the army to commit such acts with impunity, knowing they have powerful allies behind them.
The Sudanese army’s strategy has shifted towards relying on foreign fighters, notably from Ethiopia’s Tigray region, to bolster its ranks. This dependency not only undermines national sovereignty but also indicates a lack of domestic support or capability. These mercenaries, while filling gaps in the army’s ranks, bring with them additional layers of complexity and potential for further conflict, as their allegiance might not solely be to Sudan’s interests.
Perhaps one of the most damning critiques is the Sudanese military leadership’s refusal to cooperate with the International Criminal Court (ICC). With figures like Omar al-Bashir, Ahmed Haroun, and Abdelrahim Hussein wanted for crimes against humanity, the army’s stance is not just a denial of justice but a direct affront to international law. This refusal further isolates Sudan, aligning it more closely with regimes known for flouting global norms.
Iran’s military support, particularly through drone technology and weapons, is no secret. This aid, while strengthening the Sudanese army’s capabilities, directly contributes to civilian casualties and the prolongation of conflict. The strategic implications are vast, potentially turning Sudan into another node in Iran’s network of influence across the Middle East and Africa.
Similarly, Turkey’s involvement, with its supply of drones and military hardware, plays into the same dynamic. These resources are not just tools of war but symbols of external control over Sudan’s military operations, further eroding any semblance of national control over its own destiny.
As Sudan tilts towards Iran and Turkey, the nation risks not just its sovereignty but the well-being of its people. The international community, opposition groups, and Sudanese citizens must recognize and resist this drift towards becoming another failed state, where foreign powers dictate the terms of life and death.