Last month, the Sudanese Armed Forces announced that they had taken control of much of the capital, Khartoum. For nearly a year, the city had been largely under the control of the paramilitary Rapid Support Forces, following the eruption of war in April 2023.
For many Sudanese, this turning point offered a glimmer of hope. After months of devastation, perhaps now there could be room for dialogue, even a political settlement to end a conflict that has produced the world’s worst humanitarian crisis. Thousands are dead, millions have been displaced and nearly half of Sudan’s population faces acute hunger.
But that hope was swiftly crushed. Gen Abdel Fattah Al Burhan, the head of the army, declared there would be no negotiations. The SAF, he said, would continue fighting “until the end”. His statement was reinforced by the military’s official position: total victory, with no compromise.
It is a catastrophic stance, and a tragically familiar one.
Since independence in 1956, Sudan has endured more years at war than at peace. These conflicts have not been driven by foreign actors, but by Sudan’s own rulers. Military governments, which have run the country for most of its post-colonial history, have suppressed diversity, denied justice and turned their guns on their own people.
The most destructive of these regimes was led by Omar Al Bashir and his Islamist backers, who seized power in 1989. Over three decades, they entrenched a system of exclusion and corruption, dominated key sectors such as oil, gold and banking, packed the military with loyalists and brutally imposed Sharia law, even in non-Muslim areas. This fuelled Sudan’s eventual partition and contributed to the spread of violent extremism throughout the region.
Their legacy continues to shape today’s war. Islamists were instrumental in obstructing the civilian transition that followed Sudan’s 2019 revolution. They later aligned with the RSF to topple the civilian-led government. Today, many of these same actors are fighting alongside the SAF and calling not for peace, but for a permanent war.
This agenda is not just a threat to Sudan, but also to the wider region.
Extremist figures are using this crisis to advance their own interests. They have attempted to shift attention away from the root causes of war – systemic inequality, discrimination and the militarisation of politics – including by blaming foreign actors. One recent example is Sudan’s case at the International Court of Justice against the UAE, accusing it of supporting the RSF.
This legal campaign is deeply flawed. The UAE, while not above criticism, has been a crucial humanitarian and economic partner across the Horn of Africa. Singling it out, while ignoring the roles of other states that support the SAF, suggests a selective and political agenda. Worse still, this campaign appears to be driven by Islamist hardliners, who are scapegoating the UAE to distract from their own involvement and their ties to the expansionism of other powers in Sudan.
This is not justice. It is political theatre, and it does nothing to help the Sudanese people.
The SAF also lacks the credibility to appeal to international courts. For more than two decades, it has refused to co-operate with the International Criminal Court, which still seeks the arrest of former president Al Bashir and other fugitives currently protected by the army. If the military were serious about justice, it would begin with domestic accountability. Instead, it pursues symbolic legal action against perceived rivals, while shielding those responsible for past atrocities.
The sad truth is that the military remains trapped in the old logic of war, believing that peace can only come through force. But that belief has already brought Sudan to the brink of collapse. The symbolic victory of retaking Khartoum means little if the country continues to fall apart.
What Sudan needs now is not another military government. It needs a real peace process, one that silences the guns, returns displaced communities to their homes and begins the task of national recovery. It needs inclusive leadership that reflects the country’s ethnic, cultural and religious diversity. And it needs to break with the failed model of exclusion and militarism that brought it to this point.
Reverting to army rule, with Islamist factions pulling the strings and insurgencies simmering across the country, would not be a new beginning. It would be a repeat of the very history that led to this disaster.
