Lt. Gen. Al-Atta’s Statement is Not as Irrational as Some May Think

By Saeed Ibrahim Talfo
In a world where secrets are no longer possible, where support for militias and cross-border agendas can no longer be concealed from satellites and international intelligence networks, official silence in the face of irregular aggression amounts to tacit complicity. It is from this premise that Lt. Gen. Yasser Al-Atta delivered his speech, directly accusing a neighbouring country of supporting the insurgency in Sudan and declaring its airports as legitimate targets. This was not an impulsive escalation but an act of sovereignty grounded in field intelligence and historical precedents in modern statecraft.
Sudan has never been oblivious to what has been unfolding along its borders. Militia camps hosting tens of thousands of foreign fighters have been established, with recruits funnelled in under the guise of haphazard naturalization. Air and land corridors were opened for the transfer of weapons, equipment, and funds—all under the watchful eye of a known political and security regime that believed geography would grant it immunity from accountability. But after exercising strategic patience for a long time, Sudan has decided to speak out.
Leaked intelligence from military and security institutions clearly indicates that the militia fighting the Sudanese army is no longer merely a domestic phenomenon. It has become a regional tool in the hands of specific states, receiving systematic logistical support and financing while using Chadian, Libyan, and South Sudanese territories as operational bases for its war against the Sudanese state. Thousands of recruited fighters bear no national allegiance. They have been falsely labelled as “Sudanese” with forged identification papers, but in reality, they are professional mercenaries trained by foreign entities.
From this perspective, Lt. Gen. Atta’s remarks should not be viewed as extraordinary but rather as a continuation of well-established international norms. In 2001, the United States used the Taliban’s support for Al-Qaeda as justification to invade Afghanistan, even though the 9/11 attacks were not launched from within Afghan borders. In 1998, Turkey openly threatened Syria over its support for a Kurdish opposition leader, imposing strict security conditions to safeguard Ankara’s strategic interests. France intervened in Mali because external support for terrorist groups there threatened its security. These examples illustrate that when national sovereignty is at stake, states do not hesitate to send clear messages—just as Sudan is doing now.
The significance of Lt. Gen. Atta’s speech lies in its timing. The world is undergoing a new phase of strategic realignment, placing Africa at the centre of a power struggle among global giants. The international community can no longer be deceived by diplomatic rhetoric. Sudan today is confronting an insurgency that is not only supported but also directed from abroad, and the evidence it possesses leaves no room for doubt. Therefore, Chad’s reaction—or that of any other involved party—should neither intimidate nor deter Sudan, as its stance is rooted in solid intelligence.
Moreover, anticipated international reactions do not pose a genuine threat. The U.S. approach, shaped during the Trump era, still prioritizes interests over principles. The “America First” policy has not faded, and Washington’s position will be based on which side best serves stability, not on who makes the loudest declarations. Meanwhile, Russia, which is actively reshaping global influence, views Sudan as a strategic gateway to the Red Sea. The Russian base in Port Sudan remains a viable project, and any Western pressure on Sudan will only push it further into Moscow’s orbit—a reality well understood by world capitals.
China, true to its pragmatic nature, is primarily concerned with stability that safeguards its investments and trade routes. It has no incentive to antagonize a partner like Sudan in favour of supporting militant groups with no long-term viability. As for France, which might be tempted to act in defence of Chad, it finds itself constrained. Its traditional influence in Africa is waning, and its interests now intersect with Russian expansion, particularly in the competition over military bases and strategic ports. France cannot afford to open a front against Sudan without risking further ground to Moscow or Beijing.
Sudan, therefore, is not operating in a vacuum. It is navigating this conflict with full awareness of the shifting global landscape. Its prolonged silence was not a sign of weakness but a calculated strategy. Now, as it speaks, it is not seeking permission—it is asserting that sovereignty has its costs and patience has its limits. Lt. Gen. Atta’s message should be understood for what it is: a rational warning to those who thought Sudan could be devoured from its western flank without resistance.

Shortlink: https://sudanhorizon.com/?p=4828