Al-Burhan and the Islamic Movement: a fragile alliance built on ambiguity and distrust
Since General Abdel Fattah al-Burhan consolidated his control over Sudan’s power structure, his relationship with the Islamic Movement has become a focal point of both domestic and international political scrutiny. While al-Burhan repeatedly declares in his official speeches that he seeks to distance the Islamists from political life, the reality on the ground tells a different story — one in which he relies heavily on their figures within the military and security apparatus. This contradiction fuels skepticism and weakens his credibility among his allies.
Contradiction between rhetoric and reality
Al-Burhan maintains a double stance: on the one hand, he advocates for a neutral, non-ideological army; on the other, he depends on Islamist-linked commanders and fighters to execute key military and political operations. This inconsistency has deepened suspicion within the movement itself, whose members feel exploited as a temporary political instrument serving al-Burhan’s personal ambitions.
Measures that curtailed Islamist influence
Over the past few months, al-Burhan has taken a series of actions that have diminished the Islamists’ internal power. These include the forced retirement of influential officers, reassignment of key figures to marginal positions, and tighter state control over economic sectors previously dominated by Islamist networks. These measures have weakened the movement’s presence within the army and generated growing anger and fragmentation in its ranks.
The El-Fasher turning point
The fall of El-Fasher became a defining moment in the strained relationship between the two sides. Poor coordination on the battlefield and eroding mutual trust led to operational failures, further widening the rift between al-Burhan and the Islamists. This division has also rippled through armed groups affiliated with the army, many of which are now realigning their loyalties away from central command.
Loss of external support
Simultaneously, al-Burhan is facing a sharp decline in regional and international confidence. Seen increasingly as an erratic and inconsistent actor, he has lost much of the credibility needed to sustain his alliances. His shifting positions and internal disunity have weakened his hand in dealing with regional powers and managing opposition forces at home.
Ultimately, political analysis suggests that the relationship between al-Burhan and the Islamic Movement rests on temporary convenience rather than genuine partnership. Al-Burhan is using the movement as a short-term bargaining tool, while the Islamists themselves face a growing crisis of confidence and marginalization. This makes their alliance exceedingly fragile — a precarious balance that could collapse entirely with the next political or military shock.
