Did the Sudanese Army Use Chemical Weapons Against the RSF?

By: Azmi Abdelrazek

The U.S. announcement alleging that the Sudanese army used chemical weapons in 2024 sparked a wave of official and public outrage in Sudan. Not because Washington intends to impose sanctions—we are used to their sanctions and dark propaganda—but because there is no evidence or logic to support such claims. It reflects how easily accusations and lies are spread, forming strategies based on subjugating peoples and depriving them of their right to life and stability.

Premature Accusations and Their Promotion
The Sudanese army has no need to use chemical weapons in its war against the Rapid Support Forces (RSF), a militia that has recently collapsed, lost morale and combat ability, and can no longer recover its losses or reclaim lost territory.

Washington, on the other hand, lacks a single shred of evidence proving the Sudanese army used these banned weapons. The only source is a flimsy report published by The New York Times in mid-January 2025, quoting unnamed U.S. officials who claimed the army used chemical weapons on at least two occasions against the RSF.

These accusations were rushed out with audacity and deception, unsupported by corroborating reports. The U.S. officials sidestepped questions by saying the use was “limited” and occurred in “remote areas” with “no significant effect”—a way to avoid uncomfortable questions such as where, how, and what physical evidence exists for this hollow claim.

It’s illogical that the army would use ineffective toxic materials. And if such weapons were truly used, where are the effects on RSF fighters? It is extremely difficult to erase the environmental impact of such weapons.

What’s even more surprising is that the sole account comes from a Western paper with no correspondent on the ground, and it made no investigative effort to substantiate such serious claims. Strangely, even the RSF’s propaganda outlets—which fabricate many accusations—did not make such a claim themselves.

The Death of the Jeddah Platform
With this hostile stance, the U.S. has abandoned its supposed neutrality as a mediator. By brandishing the sword of sanctions, it has become practically a party to the conflict. This obvious bias in favor of the RSF undermines U.S. credibility and disqualifies it from supporting any negotiation track.

Negotiations have stalled repeatedly. The mediators failed to make the RSF commit to the May 2023 Jeddah Declaration, which demanded their withdrawal from civilian homes and government buildings and a temporary ceasefire—none of which was honored. This forced the Sudanese army to continue fighting and forcibly expel the rebels from villages and cities.

There is growing evidence that the RSF is nothing more than a mercenary force, and that the U.S. is not far removed from orchestrating the war, resuming a colonial-era agenda to destroy Sudan, suffocate it with sanctions, and empower separatist movements. This is done under the guise of promoting democracy and human rights, while in reality, their policies are colonial at heart—aimed at exploiting countries rich in resources.

As Leonardo DiCaprio said in Blood Diamond: “We don’t like wars, but we love the conditions that make them last.”

The U.S. has pledged loyalty to its Middle East proxy, Israel, and to any party that serves its interests. Among these is a known state hostile to Sudan, which now lobbies the Trump administration to save its military proxy—the RSF—defeated on the battlefield.

Crushing Disappointment
The U.S. sanctions—which will take effect after a 15-day notice period to Congress—include export restrictions and denying Sudanese state banks access to U.S. credit lines. These sanctions are nothing new.

Despite Sudan paying $335 million in compensation to U.S. victims of the 1998 embassy bombings in Kenya and Tanzania, hoping to be removed from the terrorism list and reintegrated into the global financial system, none of this was fully realized.

Khartoum was left bitterly disappointed and remains under U.S. sanctions. This is a consistent colonial strategy based on the carrot-and-stick approach—except there is no carrot. The White House, regardless of its occupant, treats Sudan the same, suggesting that powerful U.S. lobbies drive this campaign regardless of who is in office.

In refuting these allegations, Sudan’s Foreign Ministry questioned why the U.S. bypassed the appropriate international body—the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons in The Hague, to which both countries belong. Sudan is even a member of its Executive Council. The ministry rejected Washington’s unilateral measures, saying they violate the Chemical Weapons Convention and reflect a pattern of false accusations used to undermine state sovereignty.

More seriously, the Foreign Ministry did not mention that Sudanese forces had captured U.S.-made weapons in RSF stockpiles—arms never reported to the UN Security Council or other international bodies.

Who Supplied the RSF with American Weapons?
Sudanese forces recently discovered Javelin missiles in RSF depots in Salha, west of Omdurman. Each missile and its launcher—made by Raytheon and Lockheed Martin—costs around $178,000, according to the 2021 Pentagon budget. RSF troops also carried American-made AR-15 rifles, used to attack civilian targets in Khartoum and the besieged city of El Fasher.

So who supplied these U.S. weapons to the RSF, despite the UN arms embargo on Darfur? And why has the U.S. remained silent on the RSF’s documented atrocities?

Clinton’s Scandal Cover-Up Revisited
The narrative of chemical weapons in Sudan is not new. The American public was duped during President Bill Clinton’s tenure. Following the Monica Lewinsky scandal, Clinton bombed the Al-Shifa pharmaceutical factory in Khartoum on August 20, 1998, alleging it produced chemical weapons. It was later proven that the factory only made medicine.

The U.S. never admitted wrongdoing or issued a formal apology, even though later investigations confirmed the factory’s innocent nature. Clinton’s administration showed no concern for the human and health impacts of the bombing, which many saw as a political distraction.

The current chemical weapons allegation could be a pretext for military intervention, just like the Iraq invasion. The real goal: halt the Sudanese army’s victories, seize natural and mineral resources, and control the Red Sea coast. The U.S.—or rather Israel—has long had expansionist dreams regarding the Nile and the Red Sea.

As Turkish Ambassador Fatih Yildiz sarcastically wrote on X: “They lost their credibility years ago when they invaded Iraq based on fake WMD claims.”

This requires vigilance and the formation of a seasoned Sudanese team—diplomatic and military—to counter these dangerous American allegations and their potential consequences.

Source: Al Jazeera Net