To Save Sudan, Banish the Islamists and Back Civilian Rule
Peace in Sudan is a fantasy as long as Islamist factions like the Muslim Brotherhood keep fueling the war and hijacking power. In this op-ed, Hussain Abdul-Hussain calls on Washington to stop appeasing the spoilers: blacklist the Islamists, sideline the generals, and back civilian leaders before Sudan becomes a failed state for good.
Hussain Abdul-Hussain
Jul 15, 2025 - 3:12 PM
Share
Islamists Fuel Sudan’s Civil War
The United States is intensifying efforts to end Sudan’s devastating civil war. So far, peace talks have stalled as both Sudanese factions and their regional backers trade accusations of atrocities and war crimes. A more effective approach would focus on two priorities: Banning Sudan’s Muslim Brotherhood in its different iterations and affiliations and transferring governance to civilians.
For decades, the Sudanese Islamic Movement (SIM), founded by Muslim Brotherhood activists, ruled Sudan. Its leaders — such as longtime president, Omar al-Bashir — ordered genocide, prompting South Sudan’s secession, and inflicted atrocities on Muslim tribes in Darfur through regime forces and irregular militias.
In 2019, mass protests led to the ousting of Islamist autocrat al-Bashir. His regime’s components — the military and the militias — briefly shared power until a falling-out sparked war in April 2023, killing hundreds of thousands, displacing over 10 million, and causing famine.
The Role of Islamist Factions and Militias
The SIM seized the civil war as an opportunity for a comeback. Ali Karti, a key figure from Bashir’s regime, revived the SIM and aligned with the military, inciting it against the secular-leaning militias. The U.S. State Department sanctioned Karti for “exacerbating Sudan’s instability” and pursuing personal gain through the conflict.
The military’s alliance with Islamists has sparked controversy. Sudanese commentator Yasir Arman cautioned that aligning with Islamists contradicted the public’s will.
“The forces fighting alongside the army include some Islamist elements, who are after power and resources, and others with tribal social bases, as well as some movements from the marginalized areas,” Arman argued. “Despite their small numbers, the Islamists pose the greatest threat,” he concluded.
Sanctioning, isolating, eradicating the Islamists of Sudan — including SIM, the Muslim Brotherhood, and the radical militias — could be a key step toward ending the country’s civil war.
The Broad Islamist Movement, led by Karti and the SIM, includes factions like MB Sudan (under Adel Alallah) and the Sudanese MB (led by Awadallah Hassan), as well as armed militias like the Bara’ Battalion, which played a key role in military victories, such as the battle of Omdurman and the seizure of state media’s building.
Foreign Influence and Religious Persecution
In addition to these factions, other radical Islamist groups, such as ISIS, are exploiting Sudan’s lawlessness and poverty to establish a foothold, organize, and recruit. In the 1990s, under Islamist rule, Sudan hosted Osama bin Laden, the late Al-Qaeda leader responsible for the 9/11 attacks.
Non-Muslims, a small minority in Sudan, face escalating attacks on their religious freedom and places of worship. On July 8, bulldozers demolished a Pentecostal church in Khartoum, now controlled by Karti’s allied military forces, prompting accusations of “a renewed wave of religious and ethnic persecution” and a “a return to the policies” of al-Bashir’s government.
Even Iran’s Islamist regime has injected itself into Sudan’s civil war, supplying some of the warring factions with explosive drones.
Fortunately for Sudan, bipartisan efforts in Congress to designate the Muslim Brotherhood as a global terrorist organization could further isolate that country’s Islamist groups.
A Civilian Solution
Banning Sudan’s Islamists would weaken former regime elements and pave the way for the military and militias to reconcile and cede power to civilians. Among civilian leaders, former Prime Minister Abdullah Hamdouk enjoys broad support. He has urged an immediate, unconditional ceasefire and negotiations to resolve differences, allowing a civilian government to address Sudan’s crises.
Current U.S. efforts to sanction warring parties have yielded little progress. Sudan’s conflict violates international laws, but now is not the time to focus on war crimes accountability. The priority is ending the fighting, which will stave off an unfolding human disaster and prevent radical Islamists from regaining power and taking Sudan back to its pre-2019 pariah status.
Pressuring both sides to stop fighting and hand governance to civilians is the most viable path forward. A civilian-led government could determine the fate of combatants post-war. Lebanon’s post-civil war model offers a lesson: A general pardon could close the chapter on past violence, with the caveat that new crimes reopen accountability.
Like Lebanon’s civil war, Sudan’s conflict has no military solution, only a political one. Isolating Islamists and pardoning fighters are critical steps to help Sudan move forward. The country cannot afford to remain mired in war.
Share
Hussain Abdul-Hussain
Research Fellow | Foundation for Defense of Democracies