On paper, Sudan’s war is between two Sudanese generals. In reality, it is a regional arms bazaar where Turkish drones, Egyptian runways, and Gulf money decide who lives and who dies in Khartoum, Darfur and Kordofan.
The conflict, now in its fourth year since April 2023, has killed an estimated 200,000 people and displaced millions. Yet it persists because it is profitable and strategically useful for external actors. The UN Fact-Finding Mission says foreign support has allowed both the Sudanese Armed Forces (SAF) and Rapid Support Forces (RSF) to conduct increasingly sophisticated operations, leaving civilians to pay the price.
The latest controversy — allegations that the SAF used chemical weapons — has forced the international community to assess not only what is happening on the ground, but who is enabling it.
The Chemical Weapons Dossier
PMNewsnigeria.com is of the opinion that the allegation is specific and grave. According to the US government, the SAF under General Abdel Fattah al-Burhan used chlorine gas munitions against RSF fighters.
Sudan joined the Chemical Weapons Convention in 1999. Any production or use would be a direct violation.
In May 2025, the US imposed sanctions on Sudan over the alleged use. It then took the case to the OPCW, demanding independent verification. Sudan’s government said its own investigation found no evidence. The US rejected that as inadequate.
The story gained new weight in September 2026 when The Washington Post and The New York Times, citing classified documents, reported that the army had established a stockpile of chemical weapons, including chlorine-filled bombs, and had used them. The army denies it.
ALSO READ: Sudan’s chemical weapons: From battlefield claims to a test of international law
What makes the case striking is not just the alleged use, but the international community’s muted technical response. The OPCW, the world’s chemical weapons watchdog, has not yet conducted a full field verification mission, largely due to security constraints. The result is a dangerous limbo: a serious allegation, sanctions, press investigations, but no definitive OPCW finding.
Turkey’s Drone Empire Over Sudan
If chemical weapons represent the prohibited, drones represent the everyday killing machine in Sudan.
PMNewsnigeria.com writes Turkey has emerged as the most influential external military backer of the SAF. The relationship goes beyond hardware. Reports indicate that the Islamic leadership network that supports Burhan is based in Ankara, giving Turkey both ideological and strategic stakes.
Ankara’s supply is well-documented. After its expensive Bayraktar Akinci drones faced operational and maintenance difficulties in Sudan’s harsh conditions, Turkey supplied the cheaper YIHA-III suicide drone — known in Turkish as “Mosquito” — costing between $50,000 and $250,000 per unit. It is a cheaper, more flexible, attritable weapon ideal for a protracted war.
But the supply did not stop there. Washington Post documents revealed deals worth over $120 million for Bayraktar TB2 drones, advanced Akinci drones, and ground control stations. Those systems, the documents said, contributed directly to the army’s advances around Khartoum and the city of El Obeid, where drone strikes have been decisive.
ALSO READ: “Children of War”: Sudanese Army accused of recruiting kids and shutting down schools
The UN report says some drone operations by both sides could amount to war crimes due to indiscriminate targeting of civilian areas. Yet the world continues to overlook Turkish drones precisely because they are operated by the army, which is still treated as the legitimate government.
Egypt and Saudi Arabia: Mediators or Partisans?
Egypt and Saudi Arabia present themselves as mediators. Their actions suggest partisanship.
Both countries have denied providing military support to the SAF. But investigative reporting suggests otherwise.
Reuters published satellite imagery from Vantor, a US space technology company, showing a large Turkish combat drone on an airstrip at East Oweinat, near Egypt’s southwestern border with Sudan, on September 29, December 28 and January 9. The New York Times separately published images of Akinci drones at the same airport, reporting they were used to conduct airstrikes inside Sudan.
The implication is that Egyptian territory is being used as a logistical hub for drone operations in Sudan — a claim Cairo has not publicly addressed.
Riyadh’s role is more financial and political. While Saudi Arabia hosted early ceasefire talks in Jeddah, Reuters revealed that it may have mediated a $1.5 billion Pakistani arms deal for the Sudanese army, before later requesting cancellation and informing Islamabad it would not finance it. The episode reveals how Gulf interests have shifted toward preserving Burhan’s camp as a bulwark against RSF expansion, which Riyadh and Cairo view as a destabilizing force linked to other regional militias.
The Fact-Finding Mission warns that states facilitating such supply chains have legal obligations to enforce the UN arms embargo and prevent illicit transfers. Few have complied.
The Human Cost Of External Calculations
PMNewsnigeria.com writes, for Sudanese civilians, the abstraction of geopolitics translates into bodies buried under rubble from drone strikes, and, if allegations are proven, lungs burned by chlorine. The army and RSF both stand accused of grave abuses, yet only one side is consistently treated as a partner for peace.
The UN Fact-Finding Mission confirms that recruitment of foreign individuals and external support networks contribute to fueling the war, strengthening military capabilities and enabling increasingly sophisticated military operations. It holds both sides responsible for what is happening in Sudan.
It also confirms that states linked to these supply chains have strict international legal obligations requiring them to exercise due diligence, investigate and halt illicit mercenary and supply networks operating from or through their territories.
ALSO READ: Saudi Arabia’s growing footprint in Somalia raises alarms over stability and terror networks
The war in Sudan has produced one of the world’s largest humanitarian crises. As violence escalates, displaced people increase and food insecurity worsens, amid UN warnings of even worse conditions. The war has turned into a theater where regional and international calculations intersect until it became a proxy war. As a result, control over the course of the war moved beyond the two warring parties.
Massad Boulos, the US president’s senior adviser for Arab and African affairs, on Wednesday called on the warring parties to accept a humanitarian truce. In a post on X, Boulos wrote that the warring parties must accept a humanitarian truce as the first step toward lasting peace, stressing that the Sudanese people deserve an opportunity to engage in a political process leading to peace in a united Sudan.
As long as external actors profit from or tolerate this war, the danger will grow — from conventional drones today to chemical weapons tomorrow.
