Al Burhan between the hammer of Israel and the anvil of the Muslim Brotherhood ?!

It is rather noteworthy that Cameron Hudson, a close associate of General Al-Burhan and senior fellow in the Africa Program at the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS) in Washington, issued a stern warning to the Port Sudan government yesterday, stating:

“Sudan would do well to reach out to Israel before categorizing itself as Iran’s proxy.”

He pointed out in a tweet on the (x) platform that Israel is concerned about Sudan’s rapprochement with Iran, as a strategic partner.

Hudson revealed that Al-Burhan claimed that this partnership was in Sudan’s best interest, explaining that Al-Burhan explicitly stated, “I will make a deal even with the devil himself.”

However, Cameron Hudson issued what I believe is a final warning to his friend Al-Burhan: “Sudan would do well to reach out to Israel before they are fully lumped in with Iran.”

In any case, Cameron Hudson isn’t just an American researcher specializing in African affairs. He has gained his experience in African affairs through his field work as a former CIA official, a diplomat at the US State Department, and director of the Office of the US Special Envoy for Sudan, as well as his work as Director for African Affairs at the National Security Council at the White House from (2005 to 2009).

In a previous interview published by (Asharq Al-Awsat), Hudson indicated that the US Administration seeks to maintain security along the Red Sea, “Which means keeping Russia and Iran from establishing any bases in that region.”

Hudson further shared that, if Sudan and Russia have truly came to an agreement in regards to granting Moscow a naval base on the Red Sea, this will certainly constitute a major problem for Trump, and he will -naturally- have a strong reaction to such development, hence, Sudan ought to be aware that this agreement is a bad choice, and people there should be concerned about that possibility.

Hudson’s public warning to Port Sudan against further developing its relations with Tehran comes at a time when Al-Burhan had already dispatched his personal envoy, Lt. Gen. Al-Sadig Ismail, to Israel on a secret visit in a last-ditch effort to prevent the Port Sudan government from being officially classified as one of Israel’s most dangerous enemies. The list includes all of Iran’s allies in the region, who are currently facing a systematic and complex war waged by Israel and its allies, headed by the United States, of course.

Sources indicated that Al-Burhan’s personal envoy failed to allay Israel’s concerns about the complexity of Port Sudan’s relationship with Tehran, which is based on overlapping agendas between the Sudanese Army’s temporary needs in relation to the war and the Muslim Brotherhood’s aspirations to rebuild a strategic alliance with Tehran.

Thus, despite the personal envoy’s claim that the motivation for the relationship is limited to meeting the Sudanese Army’s need for Iranian weapons in its current war against the Rapid Support Forces (RSF); the truth remains unknown, at least for now, whether Al-Burhan will succeed in breaking this impasse by convincing Israel not to label his coup regime as “Iran’s allies,” who are necessarily Israel’s mortal enemies. Or if such a classification would entail harsh repercussions that the de facto authority in Port Sudan, exhausted by the ongoing war, might be unable to bear or confront.?

In contrast, would any attempt by Al-Burhan to abandon his alliance with Iran create tensions in the relationship between the Sudanese Army generals and the Islamic Movement, which has succeeded, with great difficulty, in repositioning Sudan under the Tehran-led resistance alliance.?