Whether caused by the machinery of war or by starvation and rampant disease, aggravated by food and medicine shortages, in Sudan death is ubiquitous. Cholera has recently spread, alarmingly, across seven states, claiming lives and causing panic. The risk of other diseases, such as malaria and dengue, is rising. Meanwhile, temperatures have soared to 47 degrees Celsius amid widespread power and water outages and the disruption of other vital services due to the destruction electricity, water and other essential infrastructure. To make matters worse, emergency relief workers and first responders are being prevented from reaching those in need in some besieged areas.
The war itself has grown ever more brutal as increasingly lethal weapons flood the country.
Meanwhile, the Sudanese people — who had once hoped their country would be included in US President Donald Trump’s campaign promise to bring peace to trouble spots around the world — woke up to a new cruel reality. On 22 May, the US State Department announced a package of sanctions after determining that the government of Sudan had used chemical weapons in 2024 in its conflict with the Rapid Support Forces (RSF).
The State Department said the sanctions, which would go into effect on 6 June, would include restrictions on US exports and US government credit lines. It called on the Sudanese government to halt the use of chemical weapons and meet its obligations under the Chemical Weapons Convention. The State Department refused to reveal any details regarding the times and places where the chemical weapons were allegedly used. In January, The New York Times cited four unnamed senior US officials who claimed that the Sudanese army used chemical weapons at least twice during its conflict with the Rapid Support Forces (RSF). According to those officials, the weapon in question appeared to be chlorine gas, which can cause respiratory arrest and death. The US did not seek an investigation into the allegations through the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW) or any other independent international agency.
Denouncing the US sanctions, Sudan described the allegations as baseless. “These interventions lack all moral and legal foundation,” said Sudanese Information Minister and Government Spokesperson Khalid Al-Aysar. “Washington is forfeiting what remains of its credibility and closing the door on any influence it might still have in Sudan through its unilateral and unjust decisions.”
Al-Aysar condemned Washington for “falsifying facts” and resorting to “blackmail.” He noted the timing of these measures, coinciding with the Sudanese army regaining the initiative on the ground and following the appointment of a new prime minister.
Washington’s move sent shockwaves across the Sudanese political spectrum, raising the spectre of a return to the cycle of sanctions, blockade, and international isolation. Sudan had only recently — and only partially — emerged from 20 years of crippling sanctions imposed by the US on the former Omar Al-Bashir’s regime. Washington began to impose sanctions in 1997, after designating Sudan a state sponsor of terrorism in 1993. In 1998, the US bombed Sudan’s Al-Shifa pharmaceutical factory, claiming it was producing substances used in chemical weapons. The attack killed at least one person, wounded eleven and indirectly led to thousands of deaths due to shortages in essential drugs. US officials later admitted the evidence that prompted the bombing order was “not as solid as portrayed.”
For their part the RSF welcomed the US sanctions, stating that the army had used internationally banned weapons against civilians in North and South Darfur, Khartoum, and Gezira. They also claimed that such weapons were stored in army warehouses in Omdurman and other locations. An RSF spokesperson said the sanctions underscored the dangers of chemical weapons falling into the hands of terrorists.
Meanwhile, the Democratic Civilian Alliance “Samood” (Resilience), led by former prime minister Abdallah Hamdok, called for the formation of an independent international committee to investigate all war crimes and violations committed during the conflict, including allegations of chemical weapons use against the Sudanese Armed Forces. The alliance urged the warring parties to stop pushing the country further into destruction and mass killings, and once again outlined its vision for ending the war and setting the country back on course to civilian, democratic governance and the reconstruction of the Sudanese state on a foundation of justice and equality.
Yassir Arman, head of the “Revolutionary Current” in the Sudan People’s Liberation Movement, homed in on the general nature of US sanctions. It would be better for Sudan and US-Sudanese relations, he said, if the sanctions were targeted against specific individuals and institutions, rather than inflicting harm on the entire country and millions of people.
Indeed, many analysts described the US sanctions as “lethal,” warning that the measures would exacerbate Sudan’s already dire humanitarian crisis, economic collapse, and public health and human security conditions. The sanctions would deprive Sudan of access to US technology and state financial support, prevent international investors and companies from dealing with Sudan due to legal and financial risks, and possibly damage Sudan’s relations with other countries, which might either adopt similar measures or support the US sanctions.
Analysts have also raised concerns that US accusations and sanctions could lead to further foreign interventions, as occurred with Iraq. Some accused Washington of further complicating Sudan’s already multifaceted and intractable crises and questioned its motives.
Shortly before Washington unveiled its sanctions, the Sudanese Sovereign Council President General Abdel-Fattah Al-Burhan issued a constitutional decree appointing Kamel Idriss prime minister. This followed the SSC’s reversal of its earlier decision to appoint Ambassador Dafallah Al-Haj to the post.
Idriss, a law professor, has held various international positions including director general of the World Intellectual Property Organisation (WIPO). His appointment was greeted by some as an important step to end the more than three-and-a-half-year vacuum in executive power and a sign of the intent to reform governance and address the effects of the civil war.
Others criticised the appointment of Idriss, arguing that it lacked political legitimacy and would not have domestic or international approval. Appointments of this sort require a broad consensus arising from a comprehensive political process, they said. They also pointed out that leadership changes in the middle of a war are of little value.
African Union Commission Chairperson Mahmoud Ali Youssouf welcomed Idris’s appointment, describing it as an important step towards comprehensive civilian governance in Sudan. He expressed his hope that the appointment would contribute to restoring constitutional order and democratic rule.
Despite the criticisms, the constructive spirit of the appointment contrasts starkly with Washington’s decision. However, even such constructive steps stand little chance of rescuing Sudan from its current vortex until domestic forces unite wisely over the need to stop the war so they can overcome their rifts and rebuild the country.
* A version of this article appears in print in the 29 May, 2025 edition of Al-Ahram Weekly
Short link: