Boulos’ Narrative… or the Devil’s?
As I See
Adel El-Baz
1
In statements of unknown time and place, cited by Dr. Amani Al-Taweel and attributed to Massad Boulos, he poured forth a stream of falsehoods—so much so that one wonders why Amani chose to publish them in the first place. It appears they were delivered at a closed seminar in Cairo during his recent visit last week, in which he met President Abdel Fattah El-Sisi.
What puzzles me is that the doctor knows this envoy is a fabricator who repeats the same lies. Secondly, the official Egyptian position—well known to Ms. Amani—has never, directly or indirectly, alluded to the accusations Mr. Boulos made in Cairo. One is left to ask: what interest does Professor Amani have in promoting such claims?
What did this man say? Four assertions steeped in deception, exposing his agenda and that of those behind him—as we shall see.
2
Massad Boulos said:
“The current situation is no longer an internal matter in any sense, but has become a direct and explicit threat to the national security of the United States, given the catastrophic repercussions that are imminent and cannot be delayed.”
Since when has the situation in Sudan become a direct threat to U.S. national security? The war has been raging for three years, and we have not heard of this “late discovery.” What has changed now? If the war posed such danger, the United States could have compelled the militia to abide by the Jeddah Agreement, which was signed under American mediation and witness. Why, then, was the agreement allowed to collapse before the eyes of its sponsors, rejected by the militia without punishment—or even reproach?
The militia refused to implement its core provisions, from honoring ceasefires to withdrawing from positions, proving that the source of chaos is well known—contrary to what Boulos promotes.
3
Boulos does not stop at exaggerating the war’s threat to America; he goes further, claiming:
“The trajectory of the war in Sudan has reached an extremely dangerous level, with its destructive effects exceeding Sudan’s geographical scope, transforming into an imminent regional threat that violently undermines the stability of the entire Red Sea region and directly threatens the safety of international navigation in one of the world’s most vital trade arteries.”
When did the war’s effects extend beyond Sudan’s borders? When did it threaten Red Sea navigation? Not a single international maritime body has recorded any incident originating from Sudanese coasts. No ships have been targeted, no battles have taken place there, and no neighboring state has complained of a threat emanating from Sudan.
So how do battles occurring thousands of kilometers away from the Red Sea suddenly become a direct threat to its navigation?
This is how narratives are manufactured: statements are thrown out casually, and people are expected to believe them.
4
Boulos then claims:
“There are documented and alarming indicators confirming that Sudan is gradually turning into a safe haven for Tehran’s mullahs, under the full and systematic sponsorship and hosting of the Al-Baraa brigades embraced by the Sudanese army.”
Do you see this malicious linkage between Sudan and Tehran’s mullahs? This is how accusations are fabricated when facts fall short.
The man provides not a single indicator, document, or witness to substantiate his claims. Rather, he seeks to drag Sudan into the arena of the ongoing U.S.-Iran conflict, while simultaneously driving a wedge between Sudan and the Gulf states—as if those states, with their intelligence capabilities, are waiting for Boulos’ conjectures to understand their own interests.
He then tries to link the “Al-Baraa brigades” with the Sudanese army as though unveiling new intelligence, while everyone knows that these brigades are part of the Sudanese people who rose to defend their country against the aggression of a militia supported by the UAE.
5
Boulos warns:
“This will inevitably turn Sudan into a hub more lethal and dangerous than Iran in harboring, producing, and exporting terrorism to the entire world.”
Once again, the same formula: Iran, terrorism, fearmongering, exaggeration.
One feels repulsed hearing an official spread such “baseless” claims among people—without evidence and without shame—aimed at reshaping the narrative of the war: from a war against a rebellion and a militia accused of atrocities, looting, and displacement, into a war against terrorism supposedly harbored by Sudan.
Is there any terrorism greater than what the militia commits—while you provide it cover, and it is sustained by those who supply it with weapons and funds and defend it in international forums?
6
Finally, Boulos warns that:
“Sudan will become an unrestrained arena for arms dealers, drug barons, and transnational groups, leading to the complete collapse of the pillars of the nation-state, the total erosion of its concept, and its transformation into a failed state par excellence.”
Since when has Boulos discovered these risks? Only now—after all attempts to subjugate Sudan to the agenda of the militia and its patrons have failed? The objective is clear: to pressure Sudan by all means into halting the war, as he realizes that the militia’s situation is deteriorating daily—it is being defeated on the battlefield, fragmenting internally, and increasingly despised by the people and its backers alike.
Thus, he seeks to reposition it within Sudan’s military and political body through pressure.
The era of blackmail is over.
A people who have endured for three years, who have resisted all international pressure while their capital remains occupied, will not be deceived by the falsehoods of closed seminars, the coercion of envoys, or fabricated narratives they are expected to submit to—never.
