
Drones drag Sudan war into dangerous new territory
Paramilitary drone strikes targeting Sudan's wartime capital have sought to shatter the regular army's sense of security and open a dangerous new chapter in the war, experts say.
Since April 2023, the Rapid Support Forces (RSF) group has been at war with the army, which has lately recaptured some territory and dislodged the paramilitaries from the capital Khartoum.
The latter appeared to have the upper hand before Sunday, when drone strikes began blasting key infrastructure in Port Sudan, seat of the army-backed government on the Red Sea coast.
With daily strikes on the city since then, the RSF has sought to demonstrate its strength, discredit the army, disrupt its supply lines and project an air of legitimacy, experts believe.
According to Sudanese analyst Kholood Khair, "this is intended to undermine the army's ability to provide safety and security in areas they control", allowing the RSF to expand the war "without physically being there".
For two years, the paramilitaries relied mainly on lightning ground offensives, overwhelming army defences in brutal campaigns of conquest.
But after losing nearly all of Khartoum in March, the RSF has increasingly turned to long-range air power.
Using weapons the army says were supplied by the United Arab Emirates, it has hit strategic sites hundreds of kilometres away from their holdout positions on the capital's outskirts.
Michael Jones, research fellow at the Royal United Services Institute in London, says the RSF's pivot is a matter of both "strategic adaptation" and "if not desperation, then necessity".
- Strategic setback -
"The loss of Khartoum was both a strategic and symbolic setback," he told AFP.
In response, the RSF needed to broadcast a "message that the war isn't over", according to Sudanese analyst Hamid Khalafallah.
The conflict between Sudan's de facto leader, army chief Abdel Fattah al-Burhan and his former deputy, RSF commander Mohamed Hamdan Daglo, has split Africa's third-largest country in two.
The army holds the centre, north and east, while the RSF controls nearly all of the vast western region of Darfur and, with its allies, parts of the south.
"It's unlikely that the RSF can retake Khartoum or reach Port Sudan by land, but drones enable them to create a sense of fear and destabilise cities" formerly considered safe, Khalafallah told AFP.
With drones and light munitions, it can "reach areas it hasn't previously infiltrated successfully", Jones said.
According to a retired Sudanese general, the RSF has been known to use two types of drone -- makeshift lightweight models with 120mm mortar rounds that explode on impact, and long-range drones capable of delivering guided missiles, including the Chinese-manufactured CH95.
On Thursday, rights group Amnesty International published a report that said "Chinese GB50A guided bombs and 155mm AH-4 howitzers" used by the RSF in Khartoum and Darfur were provided by the UAE.
- Sparing fighters -
The Sudanese government severed diplomatic ties with the Gulf state on Tuesday, accusing it of supplying the advanced weapons systems the RSF has used to attack Port Sudan.
Abu Dhabi has repeatedly denied arming the RSF, despite reports from UN experts, US politicians and international organisations.
According to Mohaned Elnour, nonresident fellow at the Tahrir Institute for Middle East Policy, the RSF's "main objective is to divert the army's attention" and position itself as a potential government, which it has said it will form.
"It's much easier for them to attack quickly and withdraw, rather than defend territory," Elnour said.
Crossing Sudan's vast landmass -- some 1,500 kilometres from RSF bases in Darfur to Port Sudan -- requires long-range drones such as the Chinese-made Wing Loong II, deployed by the UAE, or the Turkish-made Bayraktar TB2 used by the army, according to Amnesty.
Both sides in Sudan are in a race to "destroy each other's drone capacity", Khair said.
Two years into the devastating war, the RSF has another incentive to rely on drones, she said.
"It allows them to spare their troops" after reports that RSF recruitment has dipped since the war began.
"Initial recruitment was high based on the opportunity to loot, and there's very little left to loot now," she said.
Both sides have been accused of war crimes including targeting civilians, but the RSF is specifically accused of rampant looting, ethnic cleansing and systematic sexual violence.
By Lobna Monieb And Nada Abou El-amaim
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles

IOL News
2 hours ago
- IOL News
What did the Trump-Ramaphosa meeting tell us about the image of SA and its leaders?
A video is played as US President Donald Trump meets with South African President Cyril Ramaphosa in the Oval Office of the White House in Washington last Wednesday. The meeting was amid tensions over Washington's resettlement of white Afrikaners that the US president claims are the victims of "genocide." Trump criticised EFF leader Julius Malema and the "Kill the Boer" chant, citing it as evidence of targeted violence against white Afrikaner farmers. Image: Jim WATSON / AFP THE much-anticipated meeting between our President Cyril Ramaphosa and his counterpart in the United States, President Donald Trump, lived up to expectations, with the latter turning up the heat on his guests. By the admission of our delegation, South Africa is a very dangerous place because of rampant crime and lawlessness. While the jury is still out as to whether Ramaphosa succeeded in his attempts to reset the strained bilateral relations, what is clear is that the meeting gave the international community the impression that South African leaders are failing in their constitutional duty to protect citizens and govern the country. The result is that our pride as a beacon of hope in Africa is now hurt. The South African government came across as inept and lacking the political will to deal decisively with the scourge of violent crime, mass unemployment, and racial intolerance, to name a few crises. Video Player is loading. Play Video Play Unmute Current Time 0:00 / Duration -:- Loaded : 0% Stream Type LIVE Seek to live, currently behind live LIVE Remaining Time - 0:00 This is a modal window. Beginning of dialog window. Escape will cancel and close the window. Text Color White Black Red Green Blue Yellow Magenta Cyan Transparency Opaque Semi-Transparent Background Color Black White Red Green Blue Yellow Magenta Cyan Transparency Opaque Semi-Transparent Transparent Window Color Black White Red Green Blue Yellow Magenta Cyan Transparency Transparent Semi-Transparent Opaque Font Size 50% 75% 100% 125% 150% 175% 200% 300% 400% Text Edge Style None Raised Depressed Uniform Dropshadow Font Family Proportional Sans-Serif Monospace Sans-Serif Proportional Serif Monospace Serif Casual Script Small Caps Reset restore all settings to the default values Done Close Modal Dialog End of dialog window. Advertisement Next Stay Close ✕ Ad loading We are not yet privy to what was discussed behind closed doors and the deals that were made. What will be remembered about the meeting is Trump's wild and unsubstantiated claims of genocide suffered by Afrikaners and his display of brute power over Ramaphosa in front of the cameras. One could easily tell that Ramaphosa, like Ukraine's Zelensky went to the White House with a begging bowl. Unlike Zelensky, though, Ramaphosa went out of his way to massage the errant Trump's ego and thus came across as submissive; suffice it to say that some people would argue that he was being diplomatic. However, the big takeaway and the elephant in the room has got to be the painful admission from the South African delegation of the government's helplessness in the fight against rampant crime. This helplessness was in full display in 2021 during the looting spree after former President Zuma was arrested. To date, not even a single mastermind behind the 2021 riots has been successfully prosecuted. Similarly, those fingered by the Zondo Commission of Inquiry have not been prosecuted, suggesting that there's no political will to deal decisively with corruption and wrongdoing. This raises the question: what does this tell us about the image of South Africa and its leaders? The image of South Africa that Trump portrayed and that the delegation conceded to was of a lawless country whose government cannot protect its citizens from violent crime. In recent years, more and more South Africans are living in fear of political assassinations, hijackings, extortionists, burglars, armed robbers, kidnappers, and taxi violence. What exacerbates South Africa's problems are its porous borders and corrupt officials managing the borders. Lawlessness and the lack of political will to combat crime in South Africa are attracting criminals across the continent and from abroad to come and operate in the country with impunity. Crime in South Africa permeates every aspect of life, and it undermines good governance, efficient economic management, public safety, social order, and compliance with the law. The result is that South Africa is increasingly becoming an unattractive destination for foreign direct investment and international tourists. No wonder our domestic economy is struggling to grow and create much-needed jobs. What this means is that the problems of high unemployment and poverty are not going away soon, and crime is likely to continue. While Trump might not have succeeded in proving the genocide case, he appeared to succeed in making the South African delegation concede that crime, across the board, is out of control and the government is failing in its constitutional duty to protect its citizens. South Africa's businessman, Johann Rupert, was at pains explaining to Trump that 'crime affects everyone' and that South Africa needs America's 'help to stop this awful killing….' Interestingly, Rupert made the point that South Africa needs to fix its wobbly economy to end what he labels the culture of 'dependency and lawlessness.' The portrayal of South Africa as a country that cannot fix its problems does not bode well for its aspirations as a regional leader in Africa. South Africa styles and markets itself as a 'bridge' and a getaway into the African continent. Its membership of BRICS (Brazil, Russia, India, China, South Africa) and the G20 makes South Africa see itself as a spokesperson for and leader of Africa. This begs the question: Is South Africa fit and fully equipped to be a regional leader if its government cannot provide domestic leadership? The idea that economic problems, such as high unemployment among the youth and poverty, are to blame for intolerable levels of crime is not convincing. There are many poorer countries in Africa without high levels of crime. The difference is that there are consequences for breaking the law in many African states. In countries such as Uganda, Tanzania, and Kenya, there is a political will to hold lawbreakers accountable. Ramaphosa's cute move to dispel the notion of genocide: In an attempt to debunk and send a message that there is no genocide of Afrikaners, Ramaphosa 's entourage comprised prominent Afrikaners such as golfers Ernie Els and Retief Goosen as well as businessman Johann Rupert and John Steenhuizen, a member of Ramaphosa's GNU Cabinet. Even the presence of prominent Afrikaners appeared not to be enough evidence to convince Trump that the South African government is not discriminating against whites, in general, and Afrikaners, in particular. It should be remembered that the GNU has passed three laws that white political parties vehemently opposed, that is, the BELA bill, the NHI bill, and the Expropriation bill. In this context, Trump came to the meeting wanting to put pressure on Ramaphosa to do more to accommodate the interests of the white population. This could explain why Trump saw the multi-racial composition of South Africa's delegation to the US as superficial and condescending. The Malema factor: In making his case of a genocide in South Africa, Trump played a video of the EFF's Julius Malema chanting 'Kill the Boer, Kill the farmer' and even former president Zuma singing about shooting Afrikaners. Trump then baselessly claimed that 'they take the land. They kill the farmer. And nothing happens to them.' There is no doubt that these slogans and songs about killing Afrikaners do constitute hate speech and incite violence, even though the courts have found otherwise. It was quite embarrassing to see our prominent leaders utter such venomous words at a time when South Africans should be forging racial tolerance and unity. Without realising it, Trump gave Malema the attention he craves and the status of a leader who stands up to the 'imperialist' West. Malema might have looked bad in the eyes of the Western audience for shouting hateful slogans, but among his sympathizers, he is now the real deal, who is feared by Western leaders. The slogan, 'Kill the Boer, Kill the farmer,' has a long history in South Africa, and it is associated with the ANC during the anti-apartheid struggle. How embarrassing it could have been for Ramaphosa had he been seen next to Zuma singing a song about shooting Afrikaners, since the video Trump played showed Zuma wearing an ANC golf shirt while still the president of the ANC. So what message does it send to the world when prominent leaders in South Africa, including its then state president Zuma, sing about shooting and killing members of a minority group? The governing ANC has never denounced this awful slogan. This is the same ANC government that accused Israel of genocide but tolerates leaders who advocate for the killing of a racial minority. I guess this is the hypocrisy Trump sought to expose. No wonder no meaningful racial reconciliation has happened in South Africa. Can one then blame those Afrikaners who recently emigrated to the US? Zakhele Collison Ndlovu Image: File Zakhele Collison Ndlovu is a political analyst at the University of KwaZulu-Natal. ** The views expressed do not necessarily reflect the views of IOL or Independent Media. THE POST

IOL News
3 hours ago
- IOL News
Transgender teen competes in California high school athletics championships despite protests and Donald Trump criticism
CONTROVERSY Transgender teen AB Hernandez sparked controversy and rule changes while competing in California State Track & Field Championships amid protests and political backlash most notably US President Donald Trump. Picture:/AFP On Friday, a small plane circled the stadium pulling a banner that read: "No boys in girls sports!" Hernandez's participation at the meeting has been the subject of intense controversy, with the California Interscholastic Federation (CIF) scrambling to adjust competition rules this week as anger grew on all sides. AB Hernandez, 16, was the top qualifier for Saturday's finals in the girls' long jump and girls' high jump at the California State Track & Field Championships in Clovis, outside of Fresno. A transgender high school athlete shrugged off scattered protests and heated criticism from President Donald Trump to reach the finals of multiple events at California's state championships on Friday. CIF Updates Rules on Trans Athlete Participation and Medal Allocation On Tuesday, CIF officials announced that entry rules had been modified so that biological females were not excluded from competition due to the participation of trans athletes. A day later, CIF issued another rule change -- specifically targeting events in which Hernandez was qualified to compete -- which mandates that any athlete who misses out on a podium finish behind a trans athlete would still receive a medal. "If necessary, in the high jump, triple jump and long jump events at the 2025 CIF State Track and Field Championships, a biological female student-athlete who would have earned a specific placement on the podium will also be awarded the medal for that place and the results will be reflected in the recording of the event," the federation announced in a statement. The last-minute rules changes came after days of controversy which have included Hernandez being targeted by Trump on social media. The US President, who did not mention Hernandez by name, threatened to withhold federal funding from California in future if she was allowed to compete in this week's championships, which got under way on Friday with finals due on Saturday. "As a female, this transitioned person is practically unbeatable. THIS IS NOT FAIR, AND TOTALLY DEMEANING TO WOMEN AND GIRLS," Trump wrote. "Please be hereby advised that large scale Federal Funding will be held back, maybe permanently, if the Executive Order on this subject matter is not adhered is a totally ridiculous situation!!!" Trump's comment was followed by an announcement from the US Department of Justice that it had launched an investigation into whether California had violated Title IX, the law that prohibits sex discrimination in educational programs that receive federal funding. Local and state officials have also criticised Hernandez's participation, calling for the teenager to be prevented from competing. At a press conference on Thursday, Clovis mayor Diane Pearce called for CIF to block Hernandez's participation following their rule amendments earlier in the week. "Today, I call on CIF to do the right thing. Updates one and two were not enough, but the third time can be the charm," Pearce said. "CIF still has a chance to make it right by removing biological males from girls' sports." AFP

IOL News
3 hours ago
- IOL News
Trump and his 90-day panacea
It took a lot of humility from the President Donald Trump administration to squeeze in a meeting with the Chinese delegation in Geneva led by the Vice Premier, He Lifeng. THE secret meeting in Geneva between the US and China was indeed secret. It had to be. Either it's secrecy lay in the preparations leading up to the moment, including the contriving of the agenda, or it was in the venue. No matter. The fact of the matter is, the meeting was urgent and unavoidable. It took a lot of humility from the President Donald Trump administration to squeeze in a meeting with the Chinese delegation in Geneva led by the Vice Premier, He Lifeng. He was in Switzerland for a bilateral meeting. And the American delegation showed up for a brief one. The brevity of the encounter was reflective of secretive diplomatic artistry, and for its agenda and its outcomes, could not enjoy the description as negotiations. Armed with a memorandum to reduce the ad valorem tax on scheduled items to 10% except for the synthetic opioid fentanyl, which would remain at 20%, the US Treasury Secretary met his counterpart, exchanged pleasantries and signed the Memo. The memorandum seeks to engage the Chinese in many strategic areas where they could cooperate with the US or maintain channels of trade cooperation with minimum rancour. Realising the importance of a setting that would permit a series of meetings, each at different levels of political mandate, a period of three months was nominated. The desperation of the Trump administration is not only apparent but understandable as well. If the trip to West Asia represented a massive optics victory, it was dampened by the Palace in the Sky gift from Qatar. To his visible irritation, he constantly has to defend himself or the Department of Defence or both, depending on the discourtesy of the enquirer and the awkwardness of the moment. The Liberation Day strategy was supposed to have defined a US levelling up to a world that was ripping them off. The scientific mechanism to implement this economic objective was the recalibration calculus, whose science was familiar to neither science nor economics. The President's logic sought to prevail on the apparatus of state, and therefore of the world at large that the only way to equalise with a country that has a trade surplus with the US, $263 billion (R4.7 trillion) in the case of China, is to impose tariffs equal to such surplus. And while the shock to such illogicality registered in graduations, each more intense than the other, the Trump administration announced that they would negotiate with each of the countries on his chart who are lining up and begging the US for reprieve from the harshness of the tariffs or sanctions, if you will. When there were no long queues by world leaders pining for trade negotiations and relief, the embattled Treasury Secretary, Scott Bessent, announced that all the identified countries would be slapped with 10% tariffs across the board, an embarrassing failure of strategy if nought else. If the highest tariffs averaged 50%, China was slapped with a whopping 245%. It became apparent that the raison d'être of tariffs was a roundabout way to escalate the China containment strategy. China did not beg for mercy. It retaliated with its own tariffs by targeting those items that would hurt the US economy the most. President Xi Jinping was not bullied to pick up the phone and call President Trump. And therein lies the rub! When pressed on why the Chinese did not shiver in terror and humiliation and call for negotiations, the verbosity of the Donald became circumlocutory and evasive. But one way or the other, he was convinced, he would close the deal with China. And in Geneva, he did not close the type of deal he envisaged. He therefore gave it 90 days. Yet the President could not wait to get to the next stage of the containment strategy, and so soon thereafter, the US President unleashed a tirade, accusing the Chinese of violating an agreement they are still planning to have. It comes as no surprise that Scott Bessent went to Geneva with a 90-day validity of any discussion to be had. The Trump administration has a bewildering obsession with 90 days. If it was not the TikTok imbroglio, it was the USAID suspension of foreign activities or indeed all those policies that got ensnared in the fast-swirling vortex of 69 Executive Orders in 100 days. 90 days seem to define a government when its mind is not made, creating its own 90-day breathing space. The most intriguing question is what happens at the effluxion of the period, when inescapable reality imperatives meet policy indecision. In his inimitable style, the Don has a quixotic retort, no pun intended. 'We'll see what happens'! 90 days notwithstanding, the communique is suspiciously silent about sanctions, especially indirect secondary ones meant for trade with third countries, which the US deeply despises. The relationship between the tariffs negotiations and sanctions is deceptively subtle. Neither the Americans nor the Chinese made reference to them. But they are writ large, however, and tend to dominate the overburdened consciousness of a severely divided world. There is an added 25% ad valorem tax levied on countries purchasing oil from Venezuela. China happens to be the largest importer of Venezuelan oil. There is an added 100% ad valorem tax slapped on countries purchasing oil from Iran. And here too, China happens to be the largest importer of Iranian oil. And now the biggest punitive package ever contemplated in the history of tariffs or the US is contained in the Blumenthal-Graham-sponsored bill called the Sanctioning Russia Act of 2025. It proposes to impose primary and secondary sanctions against Russia and anyone else buying goods from Russia. It will also impose 500% tariffs on any country that purchases oil and gas, and other refined products from Russia. Predictably, China happens to be the largest purchaser of Russian oil and gas. Within the context of the China containment strategy, which is a military manoeuvre dressed in trade garb, the trigger moment is likely to be in the South China Sea. China, for its part, is an uncooperative client. They have seen the unfolding of this bellicose script from afar. They have contemplated it with disdain, and in their remonstration, have retaliated with their own tariffs. What the effect of sanctions on tariffs shall be is a vexatious enquiry notorious for its tautology. Its implications, however, are horrifying to say the least. What would be the utility of tariff reduction to 10% if they have to go back to 1000% because of secondary sanctions imposed against countries doing business with Venezuela, Iran and possibly Russia? No need to ask. The Don already has the answer… We'll see what happens! * Ambassador Bheki Gila is a Barrister-at-Law. ** The views expressed here do not reflect those of the Sunday Independent, IOL, or Independent Media.