I am not here to deny that foreign powers have intervened in Sudan, nor to defend any external intervention, regardless of its source. But if foreign intervention is indeed the problem, why has international condemnation evolved into a political campaign focused on the United Arab Emirates, while the involvement of other states, providing documented military, financial, and logistical support, some of it openly before the eyes of the world, is largely ignored?
This is not an argument for exempting the UAE from criticism or accountability. It is a call for a single standard to be applied to everyone. Condemnation that singles out one country from a broad network of external actors neither delivers justice, nor stops the war, nor saves Sudanese lives. At best, it reflects an incomplete reading of the conflict. At worst, it exploits Sudan’s tragedy as a vehicle for political score-settling and regional competition.
Sudan’s conflict is no longer merely an internal struggle between the Sudanese Armed Forces and the Rapid Support Forces. It has long since evolved into a regional proxy war, shaped by the competing interests of more than a dozen countries supplying one side or the other with weapons, funding, drones, logistics, and political cover. Research assessments and international reports indicate that more than 10 states have aligned themselves with one of the warring parties. Recent British reports identify Egypt, Iran, Pakistan, Turkey, and Saudi Arabia among the countries supporting the Sudanese army, alongside a broader regional network supporting the opposing side.
Yet international political and media discourse rarely reflects this complex reality. Whenever foreign intervention is discussed, the UAE is mentioned first, and often alone, as though the other supply lines feeding this war simply do not exist, or as though the weapons reaching the other side are somehow less deadly to Sudanese civilians.
Egypt, for example, has gone well beyond political support for the Sudanese military. Investigative reporting and satellite imagery have revealed the presence of Turkish-made Akinci drones at East Oweinat Air Base inside Egyptian territory and their reported use in operations inside Sudan in support of the Sudanese army. Military experts interviewed by Reuters identified the aircraft, while the news agency cited investigations indicating that missions had been launched from the base against Rapid Support Forces positions.
This is direct military involvement. It is not taking place in the shadows. Yet it has not generated anything close to the same level of political or media condemnation.
Saudi Arabia, meanwhile, has been linked to a proposed $1.5 billion Pakistani arms package intended for the Sudanese army and the Port Sudan authorities, including aircraft, weapons, and military equipment. According to published reports, Riyadh brokered and financed the deal. This comes in addition to reports describing Saudi financial and political support for the administration based in Port Sudan and its links to Sudan’s Islamist movement.
Iran has supplied the Sudanese army with drones. Turkey has contributed to enhancing its aerial capabilities. Russia has maintained military, security, and economic networks inside Sudan. Qatar has faced accusations of providing financial and political support, while other actors have been accused of facilitating the movement of weapons, equipment, and fighters.
Even more troubling, foreign involvement has gone beyond conventional weapons. The U.S. government has formally concluded that the Sudanese government used chemical weapons during 2024, leading Washington to impose successive rounds of sanctions.
How, in light of all this, can the entire issue of foreign intervention be reduced to a single country?
Even if the UAE were to cease every activity attributed to it, the war would not end so long as Egypt remains militarily engaged, drones and weapons continue to reach the Sudanese army from Iran, Turkey, and Pakistan, and financing, arms trafficking, and mercenary networks continue to sustain both sides of the conflict.
The unspoken objective behind this selective condemnation may well be to tilt the balance in favor of the Sudanese army and secure the defeat of the Rapid Support Forces, rather than ending the war itself. But after years of bloodshed and devastation, Sudanese people understand one fundamental truth. There will be no military victor in this conflict. Every temporary battlefield gain opens a new front. Every new shipment of weapons postpones peace and creates more victims.
Sudan is the greatest loser, and it is the Sudanese people who continue to pay the price.
The international community has every right to condemn any alleged intervention by the UAE. But it has an equal moral and political obligation to condemn, with the same clarity and determination, the involvement of Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Iran, Turkey, Russia, Qatar, and every other country that supplies weapons, money, or fighters to Sudan.
To condemn one state while ignoring the others is neither justice nor a genuine commitment to peace. It is a mockery of Sudanese lives and a form of political score-settling carried out on the ruins of a country shattered by war.
CHEMICAL WEAPONS, TERRORISTS, AND IRAN: TRUMP IS IGNORING AMERICA’S NEXT NIGHTMARE
If the real objective is to save Sudan, shut down every supply line that feeds this war, not just one.
Stop the weapons. Pressure every external actor. End the war.
Abdulmoniem Suleiman is a Sudanese investigative journalist and Editor-in-Chief of Sudan Peace Tracker, an independent platform specializing in monitoring and analyzing the conflict in Sudan.