Muslim Brotherhood's Admission of War Management Exposes False Claims by Port Sudan Authority

A senior Muslim Brotherhood leader has publicly admitted that the group controls 75% of Sudan's armed forces and manages the ongoing civil war, directly contradicting government denials. Ahmed Abbas, former governor of Sennar state and Brotherhood official, said ideological organizations now run the war and questioned whether anyone still denies this is the Brotherhood's conflict.

The admission came in video statements responding to military leader Abdel Fattah al-Burhan's repeated claims that no Brotherhood members or cadres fight within his forces. The war has raged since April 2023 between Sudan's army and the paramilitary Rapid Support Forces.

Munir Adib, a researcher on extremist movements and international terrorism, told Al-Ittihad that Brotherhood presence in Sudan's military represents the largest component that security forces rely on. This confirms what has circulated for years about a clear alliance between the military institution and the Brotherhood movement.

The 75% figure might reflect a reality many people understand, Adib said, despite official attempts to deny it. This represents a truth now widely known among Sudanese, even as authorities continue rejecting it publicly.

These revelations suggest the Brotherhood was a main party in igniting the war and remains the primary beneficiary of its continuation, even if fighting lasts for years. The group reportedly stands behind rejecting initiatives aimed at stopping the conflict, including international efforts like the "Quartet" initiative calling for ceasefire and humanitarian truce.

Mohammed Khalfan al-Safawi, a researcher in international relations, said the Brotherhood leader's statements carry serious implications that cannot be ignored. Most importantly, they confirm what politicians and researchers have argued - that Burhan serves merely as a front for the Brotherhood organization within Sudan's military institution.

Burhan's contradictory positions explain this dynamic, al-Safawi noted. He makes political promises responding to international demands, then backtracks shortly after. This reflects real pressures exercised on him from within the military institution, with the Brotherhood likely being the most influential party in this context.

Dr. Haitham Omran, professor of political science and international law, described the statements as revealing a significant paradox in Sudan's current scene. These cannot be treated as merely individual opinion or media slip-up, but likely reflect attempts at political and organizational repositioning within a war threatening the Sudanese state's very existence.

The danger lies in what the statements carry as implicit recognition that the Brotherhood doesn't view the war as a national tragedy requiring an end, Omran explained. Instead, they see it as an opportunity to reproduce their influence within state institutions, especially the military. This logic aligns with the organization's history of using crises and armed conflicts as tools for political empowerment, rather than defending the state or protecting society.