Drones: Chaos That Spares No One
The Face of Truth
Ibrahim Shglawi
Let us view the scene from a different perspective, based on the unprecedented and dangerous development that occurred in Port Sudan in recent days—a series of strategic drone attacks targeting military sites and civilian facilities, including the airport, fuel depots, lodgings for diplomatic missions and international organizations, the airbase, and the port. This reflects a qualitative shift in the nature of the Sudanese war, ongoing for more than two years.
These attacks, carried out by the Rapid Support Forces (RSF), clearly demonstrate that the country has entered a new phase of conflict—one where technology, politics, intelligence, and regional intervention intersect in a complex scene that cannot be understood or addressed without considering the broader context of the war. This article attempts to discuss this reality, particularly considering that drones are typically a weapon accessible only to state actors.
These developments indicate the presence of advanced operations rooms managing the battle remotely, controlling its technical and tactical tools. This supports the assumption of external logistical and intelligence support providing the militia with means and technologies that allow it to execute sophisticated operations beyond its presumed capabilities. This is known as a “proxy shadow war,” in which militias serve as proxies for other actors seeking to reshape the Sudanese landscape based on a new vision that has been evolving since before the fall of the al-Bashir regime in 2019.
Official statements from the Sudanese government, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, and the military leadership in the Red Sea confirmed that the drone attacks constitute “a full-scale act of aggression” backed by a regional state. Military reports affirmed that the drones were operated from outside the country. This escalation turns the conflict in Sudan into a complex regional confrontation entangled with geopolitical calculations and cross-border interests. It aims to pressure the army into negotiations to accept an imposed settlement that enables external actors to influence the core functions of the state.
Providing advanced suicide drones to non-state actors poses a threat that extends beyond Sudan to regional security as a whole. It transforms regional airspace into a potential arena of chaos. The targeting of civilian infrastructure—such as airports and ports—exposes an intent to paralyze the state and reveals a blatant disregard for international humanitarian law, which prohibits attacks on civilian infrastructure. A state that arms non-government actors with such weapons is planting a tool that may eventually turn against it.
What happened in Port Sudan cannot be isolated from regional dynamics. The drone strikes were not just an assault on Sudan; they were a warning that transcended national borders and echoed across neighboring capitals and the region. This was evident in the widespread reactions from Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Kuwait, Egypt, Iran, Turkey, the African Union, the Gulf Cooperation Council, and the Arab League—all of whom expressed concern over the gravity of these developments and, despite differing interests, agreed to reject turning Sudan into a battleground for proxy wars that threaten regional stability.
This regional and international consensus reflects a shared understanding that the continuation of war, especially with the introduction of unconventional tools such as externally supported drones, threatens to create a fragile security environment. The repercussions would not be limited to Khartoum or Port Sudan but would extend to the Red Sea, the Horn of Africa, and potentially global maritime security and the sovereignty of neighboring states.
The harsh experience in Port Sudan revealed a delayed defensive response and showed that air defense alone is insufficient without prior intelligence capable of detecting attacks before they occur. In previous crises, both domestic and foreign, Sudan was able—through intelligence tools—to prevent disasters by preempting strikes and dismantling threats in coordination with regional intelligence agencies. The battle today is not won in the skies alone but in minds, analysis rooms, and surveillance networks that know when, where, and how to thwart a plan before it is executed.
In this context, the importance of a comprehensive reading of events becomes clear. What is happening today is an attempt to dismantle Sudan’s political and social system from within, by striking its vital institutions, terrorizing its population, disrupting its administration, and turning it into a failed state. Viewing this merely as “military escalation” misses the deeper trajectory of the war.
Addressing these new security challenges requires a strategic mindset that understands the interconnection of phenomena and their evolution. The threat of drones is not just in their use against Sudan, but in the fragmented and shallow understanding of their implications—especially as they may end up in the hands of opposition groups that could threaten regional security. Hence, international deterrence and an integrated vision that protects states from within are essential. Drones—now increasingly accessible to non-state actors—could easily fall into the hands of terrorist groups.
From the lens of #The_Face_of_Truth, the events in Port Sudan highlight the urgent need to think about security in a comprehensive manner that links tools, objectives, and shared interests. It must be recognized that the drone threat transcends borders. What happened marks the beginning of a new pattern of warfare, requiring a complete rethinking of national security concepts and state tools. Ignoring this new type of warfare opens the door to a potential regional chaos that may spare no one.
Wishing you well and safety.
ر