U.S accuses Sudanese Army of using chemical weapons

Paris –  Sudan’s crisis has entered a new phase of political and diplomatic escalation after the United States formally accused the Sudanese government and the Sudanese Armed Forces (SAF) of using chemical weapons during the ongoing conflict against the Rapid Support Forces (RSF). Khartoum has dismissed the allegations as “false” and “unilateral,” while Washington has announced a new round of sanctions under the U.S. Chemical and Biological Weapons Control and Warfare Elimination Act.

Background of the Allegations

The dispute stems from a determination made by the U.S. Department of State in April 2025, concluding that the Sudanese government had used chemical weapons during 2024 in violation of international law and the Chemical Weapons Convention (CWC). The determination was officially published in the U.S. Federal Register in June 2025, providing the legal basis for imposing an initial round of sanctions on Sudan.

Under the Chemical and Biological Weapons Control and Warfare Elimination Act of 1991, any country found to have used chemical weapons becomes subject to mandatory sanctions. Additional penalties may be imposed if the government fails to provide assurances or meet the legal conditions required under U.S. law.

Why Did Washington Impose Additional Sanctions?

In July 2026, the U.S. Department of State announced that Sudan had failed to meet the legal requirements necessary to avoid a second phase of sanctions.

The new measures include:

• U.S. opposition to loans, financial assistance, or technical support for Sudan from the World Bank and other international financial institutions.
• Expanded restrictions on exports of sensitive technologies and dual-use materials.
• Additional limitations on Sudanese government aviation, including restrictions on government-operated airlines within the United States.

Evidence Cited by Washington

According to previous reports by U.S. media citing American officials, the chemical agent suspected of being used during military operations in 2024 was chlorine gas. However, the U.S. government has not publicly released technical evidence or the findings of an independent investigation.

Washington has stated that its determination was based on what it described as an independent intelligence and technical assessment, although the details have not been disclosed publicly.

Sudan is a State Party to the Chemical Weapons Convention, which prohibits the development, production, stockpiling, transfer, and use of chemical weapons.

Should the allegations ultimately be confirmed through an independent international investigation, they could lead to:

• Investigations by the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW).
• Possible referral of the case to the United Nations Security Council, subject to political consensus.
• Additional sanctions by individual countries or international organizations.
• Increased diplomatic and legal pressure on the Sudanese government.

Impact on the War in Sudan

The allegations come at a time when fighting between the Sudanese Armed Forces and the Rapid Support Forces continues to intensify, while the United Nations describes Sudan’s humanitarian crisis as one of the world’s most severe.

Analysts believe the latest U.S. sanctions could:

• Further isolate Sudan politically and economically.
• Complicate reconstruction efforts and access to international financing.
• Restrict imports of sensitive technologies and dual-use equipment.
• Increase Western pressure on the warring parties to engage in political negotiations.

Implications for U.S.–Sudan Relations

The latest measures represent one of the most serious points of tension between Khartoum and Washington since the outbreak of the conflict in April 2023.

The United States has already imposed sanctions on individuals and networks linked to both the Sudanese Armed Forces and the Rapid Support Forces, arguing that both sides bear responsibility for prolonging the conflict. Washington has also determined that atrocities committed by the RSF in Darfur amount to genocide.

Although the sanctions are expected to increase economic and diplomatic pressure on Sudan, many observers argue they are unlikely to end the conflict on their own, given the continued military confrontation, regional rivalries, and competing international interests. Without a comprehensive political settlement, the war is expected to continue, with civilians remaining the primary victims of its humanitarian and economic consequences.

Western Concerns Over the Return of Extremist Networks

Western diplomatic sources and research institutions say the ongoing conflict has revived concerns that Islamist movements could regain influence within Sudanese state institutions. Some researchers argue that figures associated with Sudan’s Islamist movement—including individuals linked to the Muslim Brotherhood—continue to hold influence within parts of the state apparatus and military leadership, although the Sudanese Armed Forces reject such claims and maintain that they are an independent national institution.

Observers note that these concerns are rooted not only in the current conflict but also in Sudan’s historical legacy during the 1990s, when the country became a hub for several Islamist extremist organizations. During that period, former al-Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden lived in Sudan between 1991 and 1996, establishing business ventures and financial networks that helped support the organization’s logistical infrastructure before relocating to Afghanistan.

Western security officials fear that the continuation of the war and the erosion of state institutions could create conditions that extremist groups might exploit to rebuild operational and financial networks in Sudan, the Horn of Africa, and the Red Sea region.

According to analysts, these security concerns help explain Washington’s increasingly hardline approach toward Sudan. They argue that U.S. concerns extend beyond the chemical weapons allegations to broader fears that Islamist extremist networks could once again expand their influence within Sudanese institutions, with potential consequences for regional security and Western strategic interests.