By Ahmad Shomokh
First: Today’s statement by the U.S. State Department that it has concluded the Sudanese army used chemical weapons is a false and fabricated announcement. However, it is a serious and disturbing development that should not be underestimated. It demands that the full capabilities of the Sudanese state—its diplomatic ties, alliances, and outreach—be mobilized urgently to contain the fallout. The implications are far from trivial. This announcement marks the most aggressive diplomatic offensive led by Abu Dhabi since its failed attempt to rebrand itself from aggressor to mediator at the Geneva forum in August 2024.
Second: It must be clearly stated: Sudan has never possessed, sought to possess, nor attempted to develop chemical weapons. In fact, Sudan was elected just months ago to the Executive Council of the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW)—a position no country would attain if there were even the slightest suspicion of chemical weapon use. The OPCW, tasked with overseeing disarmament, monitoring, and investigation related to chemical weapons, has issued no statement implicating Sudan in any such activities.
Third: The significance of the sanctions mentioned in the State Department’s classification lies not in their practical impact—Sudan neither imports U.S. goods nor receives American loans—but in how Abu Dhabi and its media and political networks plan to exploit them. Abu Dhabi sees Sudan as the only state in its proxy war path that has withstood, and indeed defeated, its destructive schemes. Sudan has been consistently exposing these plots on all platforms and in all institutions, day and night.
Fourth: This misleading U.S. classification is something Abu Dhabi has actively sought—not for its legal ramifications, but as a political, diplomatic, and media tool in its fourth-generation warfare to occupy Sudan and dominate its national security institutions. With its militias collapsing on the battlefield and its political proxies rejected by the Sudanese people, Abu Dhabi now seeks new levers of pressure on Sudan on the international stage, desperate to avoid acknowledging its own failure and defeat.
Fifth: No rational observer should doubt that this unjust and vindictive classification stems from Abu Dhabi’s ongoing operations against Sudan. It has exploited its ties with the U.S. administration, especially under the current White House leadership and the absence of a coherent American strategy for Sudan. This has allowed U.S. non-military tools to be co-opted into the UAE’s colonial agenda.
Sixth: This latest escalation from the UAE began last January, when it fed false information to a New York Times journalist, attributed to a “U.S. diplomatic source.” That journalist, Declan Walsh, had already published reports exposing the UAE’s arms transfers to its militias across Sudan’s western border. By using Walsh—who is harder to discredit than other UAE-aligned Western journalists—the UAE planted a story claiming the Sudanese army used chemical weapons in a remote area against the militia. It was an unverifiable claim, much like the current classification, which is based on no verified incidents or investigations by any credible authority.
Seventh: In this post-truth era, actual facts matter less than your power and influence to present narratives as truth. This is exactly how the UAE wages its hostile war on Sudan. From the start of the conflict, it deployed its local political and media proxies, and now it is leveraging its influence in the United States.
Eighth: With this move, the Abu Dhabi regime is trying to draw a parallel between Sudan and Bashar al-Assad’s use of chemical weapons against civilians in Eastern Ghouta in 2013 and Khan Shaykhun in 2017. Those incidents, which targeted armed opposition groups, were only internationally classified as chemical attacks after investigations by the OPCW and the presentation of intercepted communications by U.S., UK, and Israeli intelligence. None of these processes occurred in Sudan’s case—because this is simply a lie manufactured by Abu Dhabi’s lobbyists in Washington. A single rumor published in a Western newspaper has, through coordinated repetition and Emirati money—including the $1.4 trillion the UAE promised Trump—been inflated into official U.S. policy with the help of Emirati and allied Zionist lobbies.
Ninth: At first glance, this new conspiracy seems aimed at achieving multiple goals:
1⃣Replicating the Syria or Iraq model through foreign military intervention, following Libya’s failed experiment with dual power:
Abu Dhabi seeks to provoke direct U.S. military action against Sudan, like what happened in Syria (despite the clear moral difference—Assad’s regime is criminal and sectarian). In Syria, the chemical weapons accusation against Assad served as a pretext for U.S. intervention and Kurdish empowerment, leading to control over oil fields and fertile agricultural lands. The U.S. withdrew only after Assad’s regime collapsed. Should direct U.S. military intervention prove impossible, Abu Dhabi will aim to secure American political and diplomatic cover for a proxy military intervention it organizes and funds—bypassing Chapter VII of the UN Charter, which it has repeatedly failed to invoke due to Russian vetoes.
2⃣Strengthening the false narrative of moral equivalence between the state and the invading militia:
The U.S. State Department under the Biden administration did classify Abu Dhabi’s militia as having committed genocide and ethnic cleansing of the Masalit people in West Darfur—a classification Sudan now bases its ICJ case on. Although the court may dismiss the case on formal grounds, this U.S. designation remains a major embarrassment for the militia’s sponsor. The current classification attempts to resurrect the old narrative that “both sides are equally guilty of atrocities”—a claim clearly contradicted by numerous Western reports and the reality on the ground. Recent Sudanese legal and diplomatic victories have dismantled Abu Dhabi’s fabricated narratives, from the ICJ case to Sudan’s designation of the UAE as a hostile state.
3⃣Undermining Sudan’s legitimacy and isolating it internationally as part of fourth-generation warfare:
The ultimate goal is to strip Sudan of international legitimacy and portray it as a rogue state—exactly as was done with Iraq, which was falsely accused of having weapons of mass destruction. This narrative doesn’t only target Sudan domestically, but aims to weaken its credibility abroad and discourage international allies from supporting it, thereby raising the political cost of dealing with Sudan.
4⃣Laying the groundwork for long-term sanctions to exhaust Sudan and enable slow destabilization:
History shows us how fabricated accusations—no matter how flimsy—can spiral into long-term economic and diplomatic sanctions that drain a nation’s resources. Abu Dhabi is attempting to manufacture a “global mechanism for isolating Sudan,” much like what happened with Iraq and Syria.
5⃣Paving the way to seize Sudan’s resources under the guise of “chemical weapons prevention”:
Just as the Assad regime’s classification allowed for indirect U.S. control of Syrian oil and wheat regions, Abu Dhabi hopes to use this false narrative to justify the intervention of its mercenaries and seize control over Sudan’s gold mines, ports, and farmlands. The goal is to convince Trump of the potential benefits of exploiting Sudan’s resources through Abu Dhabi.
6⃣Paralyzing Sudan’s momentum and forcing it into a defensive stance:
As Sudan makes major battlefield gains and exposes the UAE’s role globally, this classification aims to derail its offensive by forcing it to expend resources responding diplomatically and publicly. It pushes Sudan into a defensive posture, redirecting energy from exposing Abu Dhabi’s crimes to countering fabricated accusations.
Tenth and finally: The Sudanese government must not take this lightly. This could rapidly escalate into more aggressive actions against Sudan. The response must not be limited to statements—no matter how important they are—but should involve a proactive, multifaceted diplomatic and media offensive to discredit these lies and expose their political roots. A high-level, international diplomatic mobilization is needed, alongside a clear legal campaign to challenge the classification and assert that these accusations are part of a hostile war strategy. I will discuss this further in a separate piece. Abu Dhabi will not accept defeat. It cannot tolerate that its militias and mercenaries have crumbled before the determination and strength of Sudan’s national army and the unity of its people. Today, Abu Dhabi has taken its war of aggression to an entirely new level.
