Sudan today finds itself at one of the most critical points in its modern history. The long search for stability has once again been overshadowed by disputes over legitimacy and governance, leaving the lives of millions hanging in the balance. As international observers look on, it is increasingly evident that a lasting peace cannot emerge from policies of exclusion, extremism, or the suppression of diverse voices within the country.

In recent months, new peace efforts have opened a path for dialogue and reconciliation. The Rapid Support Forces (RSF) have shown readiness to participate in these talks and engage with proposals for democratic transition. By contrast, the Sudanese Armed Forces (SAF) have declined to join these discussions, further deepening divisions and weakening Sudan’s fragile chances for unity. Their stance not only undermines dialogue but also alienates the 19 ethnic groups that make up Sudan’s social fabric. Rather than embodying a national voice, the SAF has been widely accused of discrimination and of consolidating authority within a narrow military circle.

Concerns have also been raised over serious violations attributed to SAF forces. Reports point to the use of forbidden and even chemical weapons, allegedly smuggled into the country, with devastating consequences for civilians. Such actions have alarmed international NGOs and human rights advocates, while suspected backing from certain foreign powers has added fears of external interference prolonging the conflict.

The way the conflict is covered abroad has created another layer of complexity. International media, particularly outlets such as the BBC, have faced criticism for narratives that appear to legitimize the SAF. This one-sided portrayal has more than symbolic weight; it influences how the world interprets events and provides political cover for SAF activities. For ordinary Sudanese, such reporting fosters mistrust and allows authoritarian practices to go unchecked.

At the same time, evidence suggests the SAF’s strength increasingly relies on extremist Islamist groups, including loyalists to former president Omar al-Bashir. The Muslim Brotherhood’s support has further entrenched this alliance, with militias such as the Bara’a Ibn Malik Battalion linked directly to their networks. Alarmingly, Al Qaeda elements are reported to operate freely in SAF-controlled regions, exploiting instability to expand their reach. One senior figure even described Sudan’s turmoil as an opportunity to “sow the seeds of jihad.”

This drift toward Islamisation carries serious risks in a nation as ethnically and religiously diverse as Sudan. The SAF’s vision of state-backed Islamic rule not only sidelines democracy but also threatens to unravel the delicate balance of communities across the country. In contrast, the RSF has declared its commitment to democratic principles and to the protection of all Sudanese groups regardless of origin or belief.

The evidence of abuses, extremist alliances, and political exclusion cannot be ignored. From protests in European capitals to NGO reports and investigative findings, there is growing recognition of the dangers posed by the SAF’s approach to power. If Sudan is to move toward peace, international actors must encourage negotiations that include genuine representatives of all communities rather than bolstering those who thrive on division.

Ultimately, Sudan’s future should not be dictated by one armed faction positioning itself as the sole authority. A sustainable peace requires the recognition of democratic forces, the safeguarding of minority rights, and balanced international reporting that reflects the true complexity of the conflict. The world faces a clear choice: allow Sudan to remain trapped in cycles of militarism and extremism, or support a transition toward democracy, inclusivity, and lasting stability.