Listen to the article
Political experts and analysts have stated that the United States’ decision to designate branches of the Muslim Brotherhood in several Arab countries as terrorist organizations represents a significant shift in how the international community addresses cross-border ideological movements. This classification raises serious questions about its potential impact on the ongoing war in Sudan, amid growing accusations that the group has played a role in prolonging the conflict.
Experts told media outlets that the Sudanese war is no longer an internal matter but has become linked to a complex network of regional interests and organizations, primarily the Muslim Brotherhood. The group has lost much of its political and financial support base in the region in recent years following official decisions to ban its activities and cut off funding sources.
Muslim Brotherhood Influence on Regional Conflicts
According to security analyst Yasser Abu Ammar, the terrorist designation of Muslim Brotherhood branches in Arab states represents a strategic blow to the organization that extends beyond legal implications to direct security consequences. The group has historically relied on cross-border operations and maintaining political, financial, and media arms in multiple countries.
Abu Ammar explained that with these operational spaces shrinking, the Brotherhood’s ability to influence conflict trajectories, including the war in Sudan, has significantly diminished. He noted that the group played a central role in complicating the Sudanese situation by supporting factions seeking to prolong the war.
Impact on Sudan’s Path to Peace
The analyst emphasized that the war could have moved toward an early settlement without ideological interventions that viewed the continuation of conflict as an opportunity rather than a humanitarian tragedy. Additionally, the regional classification limits the group’s ability to move freely, whether through financing or media campaigns attempting to justify violence or recycle narratives of victimhood.
Meanwhile, Kuwaiti political analyst Khaled Al-Ajmi confirmed that the impact of designating Brotherhood branches as terrorist groups on the fate of Sudan’s war will be gradual but profound in the medium and long term. He stated that the Muslim Brotherhood is not merely a political faction within Sudan but part of a regional network that provided cover and support.
Al-Ajmi explained that any successful political settlement in Sudan requires dismantling the organizational structure of the Muslim Brotherhood within state institutions and preventing their return to the political scene through civilian fronts. However, he warned that ignoring the group’s role in the crisis means reproducing the same conflict, even if the faces change.
Restricting Financial Networks and Recruitment
Analysts stressed that the terrorist designation of Brotherhood branches in Arab countries may contribute to reducing unofficial funding flows and limiting the organization’s ability to recruit new members or influence public opinion. In contrast to previous periods of relative freedom, these restrictions could create a more favorable environment for pushing toward a ceasefire and entering a serious political process.
Furthermore, experts clarified that while the fate of the war in Sudan does not depend solely on the Brotherhood factor, it remains a central element that cannot be ignored. This is especially significant given the organization’s attempts to present itself as a patriotic party, while evidence points to its role in dismantling the state and prolonging the conflict.
Requirements for Sustainable Resolution
The analysts concluded that any genuine prospect for ending the war must pass through neutralizing armed ideological groups, foremost among them the Muslim Brotherhood. They emphasized opening the path for a political solution based on the concept of statehood rather than organizational affiliation.
The evolving regional dynamics and increased international pressure on the Muslim Brotherhood may gradually reshape the conflict landscape in Sudan. Nevertheless, authorities have not confirmed specific timelines for how these designations will translate into concrete changes on the ground or when significant progress toward peace negotiations might materialize.
