Sudan’s Military Intelligence Chief Held Talks with US Officials Amidst War, Ceasefire Efforts Stalled
WASHINGTON – Sudan’s intelligence chief, Gen. Ahmed Mufaddal, aligned with the country’s armed forces (SAF), met with members of the US intelligence community in Washington D.C. in January, sources confirmed to Ayin. The meetings, while kept deliberately low-profile, underscore the complex relationship between Washington and the warring Sudanese factions, even as broader diplomatic efforts to secure a ceasefire falter.
The talks did not include discussions regarding a cessation of hostilities in Sudan, a conflict that has displaced over 8 million people – the largest displacement crisis in the world, according to the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR). Instead, the focus centered on “mutual security files,” including counterterrorism cooperation and intelligence sharing related to extremist networks operating in the region. A key concern for US officials is Sudan’s growing alignment with Iran, a development that raises anxieties in Washington and among its regional allies, particularly Israel.
“This isn’t about building trust,” explained Cameron Hudson, a US-Africa policy expert, to Ayin. “It’s about advancing interests that both sides have.” Washington has long prioritized counterterrorism efforts in Africa, making engagement with Sudan’s General Intelligence Service (GIS) a logical, if pragmatic, step. The US seeks assurances that Sudan will not become a haven for extremist groups and will reject the influence of Islamist leaders.
The meetings reflect a longstanding US pattern of separating immediate security interests from broader political mediation, particularly when dealing with intelligence agencies. This approach, while criticized by some, allows Washington to maintain channels of communication and gather critical intelligence without appearing to legitimize the current Sudanese government, which faces widespread accusations of human rights abuses.
Sudan’s war, which erupted in April 2023 between the SAF and the paramilitary Rapid Support Forces (RSF), has created a power vacuum exploited by various actors. The SAF, led by General Abdel Fattah al-Burhan, has increasingly relied on Islamist networks for manpower, financing, and weapons, and is reportedly forging closer military and logistical ties with Iran. This has raised alarm bells in Washington and among regional partners.
“These issues – security and terrorism – are areas where the SAF is definitely involved with Islamists, Iran, and various actors that the US considers problematic and enemies of Israel,” said Hamid Khalafallah, a Sudanese researcher familiar with the meetings. He argues that Israeli security concerns heavily influence US policy toward Sudan.
The timing of the Washington meetings coincides with escalating regional tensions involving Iran and its proxies. The US is keen to understand the extent of Iranian influence in Sudan and to mitigate any potential threats to regional stability.
However, analysts caution against interpreting the meetings as a sign of a genuine partnership. Khalafallah described the talks as a “short-term tactical engagement” and suggested the US was primarily “lecturing the government in Port Sudan on how to behave.” He believes the US is using its leverage to convey “red lines” rather than explore long-term cooperation.
Port Sudan, the seat of the army-controlled government, is attempting to navigate a complex diplomatic landscape. It is leveraging its relationship with Saudi Arabia to gain legitimacy in Washington, but faces resistance from the United Arab Emirates, which views the SAF with deep suspicion due to its ties to Islamist groups and Iran.
“We cannot forget how Abu Dhabi will continue to hammer on the issue that you can’t trust these guys,” Khalafallah warned.
The situation is further complicated by the fact that the SAF’s reliance on Islamist networks and Iranian support makes it difficult for the US to envision a sustainable partnership. Losing these sources of support would significantly weaken the SAF, potentially leading to further instability.
The Washington meetings highlight the difficult choices facing US policymakers. Engaging with the SAF is necessary to address immediate security concerns, but risks bolstering a government accused of widespread abuses and undermining efforts to achieve a lasting peace in Sudan. As Sudan’s war continues, the gap between tactical engagement and genuine dialogue remains wide, and the prospect of a swift resolution appears increasingly remote.
