Sanctions of the Usurious Shylock Administration!

By Dr. Muzammil Abu Al-Qasim

When The New York Times published an investigative report on the UAE’s involvement in supplying weapons and military equipment to the militia in Sudan (in September of last year), it included extensive evidence—such as satellite imagery confirming that the government of the United Arab Emirates had built aircraft hangars and installed a drone control station at an airfield it constructed in the Chadian city of Umm Jarsis.

The New York Times published flight tracking data proving that many cargo planes landing at the Umm Jarsis airfield were transporting weapons to support the militia. These shipments also included weapons sent to other conflict zones, like Libya, where the UAE has also been accused of violating arms embargoes.

Through satellite image analysis, The New York Times identified the type of drones used—Wing Loong 2, a Chinese model comparable to the American MQ-9 Reaper. The images showed a weapons cache at the airfield and a ground control station for the Wing Loong drone adjacent to the runway—just 750 yards from a hospital run by the UAE, where wounded militia fighters were being treated.

At the time, experts and officials consulted by the newspaper stated that the drones might be remotely piloted from within UAE territory after taking off from the base. These drones were observed patrolling the skies above the besieged Sudanese city of El Fasher, where civilians were starving and surrounded by militia forces.

The paper also reported that aid organizations were particularly outraged at the UAE, accusing it of running a “sham aid operation” to mask its support for the militia. According to Jeremy Konyndyk, head of Refugees International and former official under both Obama and Biden administrations, “They want to have it both ways… They want to behave like rogues—supporting their militia proxies and turning a blind eye to their atrocities—while also appearing as constructive, rule-abiding members of the international system.”

In February 2024, the European Union Ambassador to Sudan, Aidan O’Hara, wrote in a secret memo (obtained by The Times) that “the delivery of drones, howitzers, multiple rocket launchers, and man-portable air-defense systems (MANPADS) by the UAE to the Rapid Support Forces helped neutralize the Sudanese army’s aerial superiority.”

The paper also noted: “When cargo planes began landing at the Umm Jarsis airfield—600 miles east of Chad’s capital, N’Djamena—the UAE claimed it was establishing a field hospital for Sudanese refugees. But within months, U.S. officials discovered that the $20 million hospital was quietly treating militia fighters, and the cargo planes were also ferrying weapons smuggled into Sudan for combatants.”

Satellite images and flight records analyzed by The New York Times further showed that “the UAE was establishing a drone warfare system while simultaneously promoting its so-called humanitarian mission.”

Thus, we see that the allegations directed by the American newspaper at the UAE (in two investigative reports) were backed by ample evidence, strong indicators, satellite images, and testimonies from numerous officials and experts. This is in addition to the evidence presented in the UN Panel of Experts’ report on Darfur, which confirmed the credibility of Sudan’s accusations that the UAE was involved in the war by supplying weapons and military equipment to the militia. So, what proof or evidence did the U.S. government rely on for its recent allegations that the Sudanese army used chemical weapons in the ongoing war?

Answer: None!

The Trump administration provided not a single shred of evidence to substantiate its claim that the Sudanese army used chemical weapons!

It’s worth noting that the same American newspaper previously leveled similar accusations at the Sudanese army in a report published in January 2025, without offering any of the supporting evidence or corroboration it had provided in its UAE investigation—just as the Trump administration did with its baseless allegations against the Sudanese army!

The Americans did not specify when the Sudanese army supposedly used chemical weapons.

They did not specify where or how such weapons were used.

They did not specify the number of victims allegedly affected.

They did not clarify how they verified the army’s use of chemical weapons!

It is known that proving chemical weapons use requires either physical evidence (devices used), medical examination of victims, air sample collection within 24 hours of the incident, or soil sampling (time-dependent on the chemical used). Did the Americans follow any of these procedures to verify the validity of the accusation they threw at the Sudanese army?

Answer: No. Yet they imposed punitive measures on Sudan!

The most laughable part of this baseless allegation is that even the militia itself has never made such a claim, nor accused the Sudanese army of using chemical weapons. If they had, they would have loudly raised the issue, paraded the victims, interviewed survivors, taken samples, and examined the deceased and the soil. So why are the Americans being more royal than the king?

Why are they silent about the UAE’s documented involvement—supported by undeniable evidence? Why haven’t they punished the UAE government for supplying tools of death and destruction used to kill Sudanese civilians? These are deadly weapons that have enabled ethnic cleansing, massacres, rape, sexual violence, the displacement of millions, and the killing of over 15,000 members of the Masalit tribe in West Darfur alone!

It’s clear to any observer that these baseless accusations and unjustified sanctions are timed to coincide with the Sudanese army’s major victories over the Janjaweed. The U.S. administration seems intent on blackmailing the Sudanese government and pressuring it for its own interests. Were it truly committed to justice, halting the killings, ending the war, and addressing the world’s worst humanitarian disaster, it would have applied pressure and punishment on its ally—the same ally that filled U.S. coffers with hundreds of billions of dollars. These funds, as has been unequivocally demonstrated, are enough to gag the American administration into silence over the atrocities committed by the UAE in Sudan over the past two years.

The Sudanese government will not pay heed to these false, malicious, baseless claims. The Sudanese people and their leadership will not be blackmailed again. Our long-standing experience with oppressive America, which has only spoken to us through the language of sanctions since the 1990s, has hardened us. The Sudanese people are no longer intimidated by threats or cowed by hollow sanctions that have never upheld justice—nor even killed a fly!

The valiant Sudanese army will continue its sacred duty to defeat the rebels and resist those seeking to subjugate the Sudanese people. It will keep advancing across all fronts and, with God’s will, will triumph over the brazen aggression from the UAE government and its looting Janjaweed killers. The Sudanese people will simply mock these accusations—delivered without evidence—by those acting “more royal than the king”… the very king they claim was struck with chemical weapons, yet never screamed, never cried, and never accused his attacker.

So, what chemical weapons is Shylock—the usurer of our time, Donald Trump—talking about?