The most dangerous thing that can happen to a national army is not losing a battle but having its decision-making process hijacked and its national doctrine replaced with an ideological one that serves a political organization. This is the major question facing Sudan today: Is the army still an institution belonging to all Sudanese people, or has the influence of the Islamic Movement and the remnants of Bashir’s regime, known as the “Kizan,” pushed it into a war aimed at protecting their project and returning them to power?

For years, the Muslim Brotherhood worked to infiltrate state institutions and tie loyalty to the organization, and the military institution was not immune to this. After the fall of Bashir’s regime, these networks did not disappear. Instead, the war reopened the door for the return of ideological battalions and elements linked to the former regime to fight under the army’s umbrella. This is where the real danger began: an institution that is supposed to protect all Sudanese people could be transformed into a military ideological alliance in which the state becomes mixed with militias, the nation with the organization, and the army with a project to regain power.

The seriousness of the situation is further heightened by investigations and allegations related to the use of chemical weapons. In May 2025, the United States officially announced that it had concluded that the Sudanese government had used chemical weapons during 2024 and imposed sanctions as a result, while calls for international inspections and investigations later intensified. Reports and investigations have also emerged alleging the use of chlorine gas as a weapon, while Sudanese authorities deny these accusations. Until an independent international investigation is completed and the chain of command, as well as those responsible for issuing and carrying out the orders, are identified, the moral and political question remains deeply alarming: How did Sudan reach a point where its national army is accused of using a prohibited weapon against its own people?

If these accusations are proven, the crime will not merely be a violation of the laws of war, but a declaration of a dangerous collapse in the very meaning of a national army. An army that is supposed to be a shield for the people cannot become an ideological tool that attacks its own population in order to protect a political project or an organization seeking to return to power.

A message to the remaining rational and patriotic figures within the Sudanese army: Sudan is bigger than the “Kizan,” and bigger than any militia or group. Stop shedding the blood of your own people, reject the hijacking of your institution, and unite with your fellow citizens to build a civilian state and a single professional army. Enough playing with the present and the future. Sudan needs those who will save it, not those who seek to rule over its ruins.

Disclaimer: The opinions expressed by the writers are their own and do not necessarily represent the views of Annahar