A number of commentators have begun to consider Sudan’s civil war no longer an outside internal conflict, but is being framed by a growing number of commentators from across the globe as a continuation of deeper network structures of historical and structural relationships between Sudan’s military leadership and its Islamist movement, often referred to as Sudan’s local offshoot of the Muslim Brotherhood.
The current conflict between the Sudan Armed Forces (SAF) and the Rapid Support Forces (RSF) has mostly destroyed much of Khartoum and much of Darfur. Some current discussions and analyses taking place in Washington are not so much focused on the current battlefield dynamics as they are on “…ideological networks that are operating behind the scenes.”
This view has been echoed by a growing number of people who have put out information recently (ie., La Razón, Gatestone Institute, National Interest) who have stated individuals involved with Sudan’s Islamist Movement appear to be embedded in state institutions; these same studies indicate that alignments of the Islamist factions appear to be taking advantage of this war, allowing them to consolidate their influence and control across military, Intelligence, and political structures.
Treasury Sanctions and Escalating Concerns
In September 2025, the US Treasury imposed sanctions on the Al-Baraa bin Malik Brigade due to their destabilising actions and supposed connections to Iran. They claim that the brigade’s actions have created regional instability and disrupted attempts to return to civilian rule. Policy experts have noted that by sanctioning only one brigade, Washington is acknowledging its concern about the many armed Islamist networks that are operating throughout Sudan’s conflict zones. Some analysts have now concluded that the designation of one brigade will not disrupt the underlying organisational structure that supports these groups.
Analysts continue to believe that the designation of the Sudanese Islamic Movement as a Foreign Terrorist Organisation (FTO) or a Specially Designated Global Terrorist (SDGT) entity would be an appropriate escalation of the sanctions against such groups. They believe that such a designation would disrupt funding for these groups, limit their ability to travel internationally and provide additional support for diplomatic pressure against these groups.
As of this writing, US officials have not yet publicly made any announcements regarding a broader designation, but the debate continues to intensify in policy circles for security warning concerns.
Red Sea Strategic Risk
Sudan’s geography makes this discussion even more urgent. The country has coastlines along the Red Sea, which is among the most important global maritime transit points and has a high volume of global trade. A large percentage of this trade flows through the Red Sea corridor, such as energy flowing between Europe, Asia, and the Middle East.
Analysts have raised alarm bells over how prolonged instability in Sudan might lead to more geopolitical contestation along the Red Sea corridor. Analysts speculate that reported Iranian influence, together with Islamic networks embedded within the state’s infrastructure, increases the potential for some level of militarisation along the Red Sea coastline, or to provide proxy leverage on the danger of escalation.
According to some African commentators, the conflict in Sudan could be read as a strategic warning for the entire African continent. They argue that the collapse of a state linked to an ideological conflict could lead to instability throughout northeast Africa, disrupt trade routes and complicate cooperation for regional security.
Washington’s Policy Dilemma
In the past, the United States has designated various groups that have affiliations with the Muslim Brotherhood. Designating the Islamic Movement in Sudan would create diplomatic ramifications of considerable importance. Proponents of such a designation contend that it would make the US position clear, demonstrate a lack of tolerance for state-embedded militant groups, and reinforce the priority of maritime security. Detractors, on the other hand, are concerned that broad designations will hinder humanitarian assistance, as well as close off avenues for diplomatic resolution to the conflict. While Sudan continues to be embroiled in war, a growing number of sources in Washington are examining whether targeted sanctions are sufficient or if a more comprehensive designation is warranted to address what some analysts see as the ideological underpinnings to the conflict.
FAQs
1. What triggered US sanctions in September 2025?
The US Treasury sanctioned the Al-Baraa bin Malik Brigade, citing destabilising activities and alleged links to Iran.
2. Why is Sudan strategically important?
Sudan borders the Red Sea, a vital global trade corridor linking Europe, Asia and the Middle East.
3. What is being proposed in Washington?
Some policy experts are urging the US government to designate Sudan’s Islamic Movement under the FTO or SDGT frameworks.
4. How could designation affect Sudan?
It could restrict financial transactions, freeze assets and limit international engagement with affiliated individuals or entities.
5. Is there consensus on this approach?
No. While some analysts support designation as a security measure, others warn it could complicate diplomacy and humanitarian efforts.
