Sudan: Iranian Proxy & Political Taqiyya



Thanks to Scott Morgan (the President of Red Eagle Enterprises) we had access to the minutes of a Joint Military and Security Committee meeting that took place, last August, at the National Defence College, in Khartoum (Sudan). This document (whose authenticity has been confirmed here) help us to understand how the Sudanese leadership thinks and operates:

Darfur & South Sudan
Sudan insists on meddling in South Sudan, not only for economic reasons but also because it has the perception that President Salva Kiir seeks to change the Islamic rule in Khartoum (thus supporting the opposition parties). Furthermore, Sudan is suspicious of the American and Israeli presence in Juba, plus the Ugandan support to the South. If the government in Khartoum feels threatened by these relationships, then aggressive behaviour may be on the horizon in order to get territory back and, protect the Islamic rule “Now we have the necessary information which will enable us to take the right decision against the South and Uganda, and to deal with the movements that are collaborating with them."

"Therefore, we must support all the efforts done by Mbeki. But I am not optimistic that they will agree to the Mbeki option, because all of them have adopted the New Sudan Project…" - this statement suggests that the Sudanese government is willing to accept the recommendations made by Thabo Mbeki, the chief negotiator in the Darfur crisis; however, last week, the world was informed that Mr Mbeki has suspended the talks after President al-Bashir rejected a request to extend the government delegation’s mandate to negotiate on a number of vital rebel demands. If Sudan refuses to address the most immediate demands then we may expect tensions to escalate on another front.

Political Taqiyya towards the West
"We keep the opposition, the Consensus Forces (CF), to preserve our image in in the eyes of the international and regional public opinion.[sic]"

Political Taqiyya: since the West is obsessed with democracy and political plurality (and many African nations are swaying towards democracy [with western contours]), they allow the existence of opposition parties in order to obtain their grace and perhaps deflect attention from their activities. However, they must still protect themselves and to that effect the Sudanese government places its own agents to influence the behaviour of the opposition "Even the Umma (National) Party is infiltrated to the extent that we dominate the decision-making process within the party." - they go to great lengths to hamper the fall of the Islamic rule.

Political Taqiyya towards Friends
Sudan caters Iran (with whom it maintains a defence & security strategic relationship) and the Gulf Nations (from whom it seeks investment). From the minutes we understand that the Gulf Nations see Sudan's friendship with Iran a threat to Sunnism as Sudan permits Iran "to operate more than 200 cultural centers that are proselytizing Sh’ism" and to send weapons through Sudan “by way of the Red Sea to Abd al-Malik Al-Huthi’s Shiia group in Yemen"; therefore, the Sudanese solution is to “[mislead] the Gulf States by taking open, declared steps and procedures towards improving diplomatic relations with them." (i.e. after consulting with Iran, Sudan will close down many Shiite cultural centres to appease the Arab countries) so that Sunni funds keep flowing in.
Although Sudan sees itself forced to indulge the Gulf States (that fret about the Iranian influence and military presence in the country); it has decided that it will "work strategically with Iran, in total secrecy and on a limited scale, through the MI and security.” even more so because Iran is the only country that “has the courage to say no to the whole West." (that is, it has more manoeuvring space to act according to Sudanese interests, without having the West interfering).

A Threat to World Security
It's not a secret that Sudan is a safe haven for terrorists groups (AQ's Bin Laden lived there; Hamas elements spend time there; Muslim Brotherhood members live there etc) and it doesn't even try to hide it "(..) we have many Islamic Sunni Salafi organizations belonging to different radical groups from all over the world." 
In line with the political Taqiyya, Sudan promised Egypt that it would keep the Muslim Brotherhood under control (if Cairo would, in turn, control the Sudanese opposition and militias activities in its territory), however the Sudanese leadership can't be trusted since it has admitted that it passes all intelligence on to Iran, who will use those Sunni groups to serve its purposes "We have relations with all the Islamic Movements World Wide and we represent a door for Iran to all these Islamic groups."
Khartoum also confesses to have infiltrated all embassies (these include the US, Canada, EU nations, Ethiopia, India, Brazil etc) "All the embassies and chanceries in Khartoum are infiltrated and our elements report to us who goes in or out." - a grave breach of security for these facilities when we think about the relationship between Sudan and Islamic Salafi organisations.

So what does Sudan want after all?
First, it seeks to develop itself (and to that end it's willing to engage in political duplicity); then it seeks to protect the Islamic rule at all costs (i.e. again through political duplicity: it shows the west it allows for political plurality while infiltrating the opposition parties to suppress unwanted outcomes); to serve as a transit point for weapons from Iran; and to interfere in South Sudan's internal affairs (either through direct assistance to rebels or through disinformation campaigns to generate instability), probably to preclude it from going ahead with the planned Uganda-Kenya-South Sudan oil pipeline – which would obliterate for good any prospects of South Sudan exporting oil via Sudan's pipelines.
Sudan is a danger to regional and international stability. If we think of it being an Iranian proxy (much like Syria and Lebanon under Hezbollah's influence); if we think of it passing Iranian weapons to Séléka in CAR, to the Zaidi in Yemen, to Hamas in the Gaza Strip and to all other anti-government entities in West Africa; and if we think of it interfering with Uganda and South Sudan (and who knows if not Kenya, a close western and Israeli friend), it's not difficult to understand why this country is a danger to the interests of the free world.
The question is: must we tackle Iran in order to see a stable African continent?


(I'd like to thank Scott Morgan for both the link to the minutes and the most helpful conversation we had about Sudan)

Comments

  1. A stable Africa? Not in my lifetime. South Africa offers some hope but only some. I really cannot think of any other nation there which can offer stability to its people.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Hi Rummy :D!

      South Africa is boiling too but most don't know it yet.
      You never heard of Namibia, Zambia, Botswana, Tanzania, Lesotho, Rwanda, Uganda? These are stable African countries. I lived in Zambia and I can assure you that it is stable and peaceful, more stable than my birth country (Mozambique).

      Africa is the future and that's why we need to re-direct our attention to it now before the ME countries decide to blast it due to competition.

      Rummy, thank you so much for your comment :D.

      Cheers

      Delete
    2. I apologise to the Cabujuras: Cape Verde is also a very stable and prosperous African nation. :)

      Delete
  2. This Sudan passes weapons to everybody including the terrorists in Gaza and Yemen, we need to invest in Africa so we need to attack both Sudan and Iran, how you ask? I let the big guys decide that. But I know this, we can't put money in countries under the Iranian threat and if Sudan is her proxy then we have to deal with both. Don't want to alarm anyone but I see signs that war may be a reality soon in Sudan and South Sudan.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Hi Pietr :D!

      I concur. I would like to see how the west intends to prevent it; or perhaps it will let South Sudan fall as a trade with Iran and its Arabs mates?

      Pietr, thank you so much for your comment :D. Always a pleasure.

      Cheers

      Delete
  3. Iran must go down. But at the same time it's easy to realize why the negotiations between west and Iran is taking so long, too many considerations! But I have no doubts that if we want a stable African continent we have to tackle Iran, Hezbollah and their friends who seek control of African resources to fund their activities.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The centre of instability in this part of Africa is currently Libya. Please, not one more Intervention for the sake of more stability. We have seen the results...

      Delete
    2. The instability in Libya stems from Sudan as well, so it's all related. We saw no intervention in Syria and looked what happened, so intervention is not the problem!

      Delete
    3. Hi Anonymous :D!

      True, if we want to see a stable African nation we have tackle the elements you mentioned, although politicians will say "it's complicated" - as if it weren't complicated to let countries burn.

      Anon, thank you so much for your comment :D.

      Cheers

      Delete
    4. Hi Anonymous II :D!

      Libya is a problem, indeed. But who is fuelling the instability there? If we cut the fuel...
      The problem is not intervention per se; the problem is when we lose sight of the mission. But not doing anything can be as destructive as acting without focus; but in the name of stability: what would you do?

      Anon, thank you so much for your comment :D.

      Cheers

      Delete
  4. These guys are something else! They play with both sides, they play all sides and they want war. If we attack Iran, Saudis will still use Sudan for their foreign policy purposes and expansion of conversions; if we attack Iran and Sudan at the same time perhaps the problem could be solved but how realistic is that? Unless the AU would admit the danger Sudan is and together ask for help to shut the Islamic rule down for good, but good luck with that!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Hi Cêcê :D!

      Good point: the AU would have to play a vital part in that decision. But are they ready?
      My dear, thank you so much for your comment :D.

      Cheers

      Delete
  5. The minutes are a fabrication intended to discredit Sudan, do not believe it!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Are you a troll, Anonymous? Cause there's a link in this article proving the authenticity of the minutes, so what the hell are you talking about? Sudan discredits herself through her actions, she doesn't need external help for that!

      Delete
    2. Hi Anonymous :D!

      You are saying that based on what, pray?

      Cheers

      Delete
  6. The world is too distracted with the same convenient things; Palestine, ISIS, CIA and Russia, while conveniently ignore what's happening in the rest of the planet. I agree with you, ADF is using the same methods as Al-Shabaab, ISIS, PLO/Hamas, Boko Haram and they try to convince us they're not coordinated, bullshit! As far as I'm concerned, your other post on the seven step plan is spot on.
    As for Sudan, Iran is the problem and so Iran must be stopped.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Hi Carl :D!

      True. Thanks, even I'm beginning to think that that post is spot on.
      Indeed...

      Carl, thank you so much for your comment, man :D.

      Cheers

      Delete
  7. Max, the thought of the week is spot on. What's wrong with the world today? And more importantly, who's running it?
    Sudan is a problem, it has been a problem ever since the Arabs meddled with it along with the British, and that's all to it. How many rebels from all Islamic Movement groups do they harbour, huh? And weren't they advising the Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood on how to attack Ethiopia cause of the dam? Yeah. But like Celeste said, we aren't gonna do anything; plus I get where Rummuser is coming from, as long as we are not in a hurry for African resources we are not gonna see any definite changes there in our lifetime.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Hi Joseph :D!

      A bunch of self-serving witless individuals, maybe?
      I hear you. Yes, I believe I heard something along those lines...but I'm sure Ethiopia acted promptly.
      I understand.

      Joe, thank you so much for your comment :D.

      Cheers

      Delete
  8. I'm all for attacking Iran. I like the Iranian people but their leadership is bellicose and hateful, so either the people stop them or we must! But things can't go on this way. And at some point Africa needs to decide what she wants, really wants for the future.
    I like the term political taqiyya, well coined cause that's what any Muslim country does. We are no better but at least we are reliable.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Hi Ana :D!

      So so true.
      LOL yes, we all do some sort of taqiyya.
      Darling, thank you so much for your comment :D.

      Cheers

      Delete
  9. Xii, I go deeper in this issue. Both Iran and the gulf states should be attacked but in different ways: Iran needs a military intervention to help those people get rid of that murderous regime, the gulf states need sanctions now! My reasoning is the following, if we get of Iran then Saudis can feel encouraged to continue the Iranian legacy to benefit themselves, so if we're going to tackle one side we have to tackle the other simultaneously!
    The problem is not shiite or sunni, the problem is political Islam period. They are not different if we look at it closely! Without them who would Sudan turn to?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Hi Leila :D!

      I like your suggestion but what would you answer to those who worry about the civilians?
      True, simultaneous action is required.
      I concur.

      Leila, thank you so so much for your comment :D. Always a pleasure.

      Cheers

      Delete

Post a Comment

Dissecting Society welcomes all sorts of comments, as we are strong advocates of freedom of speech; however, we reserve the right to delete Troll Activity; libellous and offensive comments (e.g. racist and anti-Semitic) plus those with excessive foul language. This blog does not view vulgarity as being protected by the right to free speech. Cheers