Sudan in the Discourse of an Egyptian Analyst: From the 'Backyard' to Paving the Way for an Egyptian War on Sudan

Article (2) by Dr. Ahmed Tijani Sid Ahmed, a founding member of the Sudan Founding Coalition 'Tasis', Rome, Italy — October 15, 2026. From the incident of the bombing to the rhetoric of threats, the first article addressed the bombing of artisanal mining sites in the northern valley and the questions it raised regarding the protection of Sudanese citizens and the safeguarding of land and sovereignty. This installment shifts to analyzing Egyptian media discourse that portrays Sudanese movement within Sudan as a threat to Egypt, while framing Egyptian-Sudanese coordination in the bombing as something natural or justified. This discourse appeared in an analysis by an Egyptian commentator on the 'Khamsinat Iqtisad' program. The significance of this analysis lies in its revelation of a political and media mindset that places Sudan in the position of a subordinate or 'backyard', then depicts any independent Sudanese movement as a danger threatening Egypt. When Sudan becomes, in the discourse, a threat to Egypt, the Egyptian analyst discusses in the video clip the movements of the Sudan Founding Coalition 'Tasis' in terms that suggest that Sudan or its political and military forces might be moving to invade or threaten Egypt. This is a portrayal that flips the facts: Sudan is the country where sites within its borders were targeted, according to the reports and the published map, yet the Sudanese movement is presented as the source of the danger. The Sudan Founding Coalition 'Tasis' is a broad Sudanese framework that includes civil and partisan entities and armed struggle forces, based on a charter and a transitional constitution that define its political project and the path of state-building. The existence of this coalition or its political activity cannot be portrayed as evidence of an intention to invade or threaten Egypt. It is the right of the Sudanese to discuss their political project and defend their country's sovereignty, just as it is the right of the Egyptians to know what is being said in the name of their national security and whether it is being used to justify interference in Sudan's affairs. [Image: A screenshot from the Egyptian analyst's analysis on the 'Khamsinat Iqtisad' program. Link to the recording below.] Link to the recording: Watch the recording. Talk about an agreement on the bombing: The most dangerous aspect of the analysis is what was attributed to the analyst regarding the strikes occurring within the framework of an agreement or understanding between Egypt and the military authority in Sudan, or with the knowledge of the Sudanese army. If this claim is true, it raises the suspicion of Egyptian-Sudanese collusion against Sudan's sovereignty, and direct questions about which entity authorized the targeting of sites inside the country and the protection of Sudanese civilians. The Port Sudan government issued a statement announcing the formation of a fact-finding committee regarding the incident, and the Sovereignty Council's statement indicated contact between the leaderships of the two countries. The formation of the committee does not replace the need to publish its findings and provide the facts to public opinion. The investigation should reveal the circumstances of the strikes, the entity that carried them out, and the basis upon which they were conducted. The map and the location of the strike: The image of the map published in the 'New York Times' shows the targeted site about 40 kilometers inside the Sudanese border, south of the Egyptian-Sudanese border and below the 22° N latitude line. The newspaper also displays two satellite images of the site before and after the strike. The issue here is not a border dispute; rather, the site of the strike is within the Sudanese borders as shown on the published map. The image and the report remain items that should be examined as part of an independent investigation. [Image: A map published by the 'New York Times' of the strike site. According to the report, the site is located about 40 kilometers inside the Sudanese border.] Official statements and miners' questions: A statement by the Egyptian Armed Forces referred to operations to combat illegal mining but did not specify the location in question and did not provide sufficient explanation regarding the strikes. This statement, along with other circulating remarks, raised questions about the nature of the operation, its location, and the victims who fell therein. Media also circulated statements attributed to Naguib Sawiris in which he thanked the Egyptian authorities for removing the miners. These statements, if their accuracy and context are verified, raise additional questions: Who do the Egyptian authorities mean by the miners? Where were they? Was there an operation inside Sudan, as is evident from the location of the bombing and the identity of the Sudanese victims? And who has the right to determine the fate of Sudanese citizens, their lands, and their resources? Combating illegal mining should not turn into a justification for targeting persons or sites inside Sudan, or into a means to bypass Sudanese sovereignty. Addressing any illicit activity requires respect for Sudanese jurisdiction and the protection of civilians, not military action over which narratives conflict. Between the two peoples and government policies: The objection is directed at the policies and interventions that affect Sudan and its sovereignty, not at the Egyptian people. Between the Sudanese and Egyptian peoples, there are historical, familial, and cultural ties. These ties are not upheld by denying facts or by portraying the Sudanese objection to the bombing as hostility towards Egypt; rather, by respecting the independence of Sudan and facing disagreements clearly. Statements of condemnation and the dangers of escalation: Popular entities and the Sudan Founding Coalition 'Tasis' issued strong statements condemning the bombing, and Sudanese in various regions expressed their anger and fear that the targeting of civilians would set a precedent. There were also reports of attacks affecting truck drivers transporting Egyptian goods. The details of these reports and their sources should be verified, while rejecting the targeting of civilians or holding them responsible for the actions of governments and military institutions. The escalation of popular anger, coupled with a media discourse that presents Sudan as a source of threat to Egypt, creates a dangerous environment. These incidents warn of confrontation and war between the two countries if they continue to be ignored or justified. The warning here does not mean that the war has begun or is inevitable, but that the bombing, undisclosed understandings, and inflammatory discourse may push matters towards it. Questions that can only be answered by an investigation: Who has the right to decide what happens inside Sudan? Does the existing military authority accept that Sudanese citizens be targeted on their land within the framework of an agreement the Sudanese people are unaware of? Does this discourse prepare Egyptian public opinion to accept wider interventions by portraying Sudan and its political project as a threat to Egypt? These questions can only be answered by an independent investigation, announcing its results, holding those responsible accountable, and providing a clear statement regarding any military coordination that took place at the expense of Sudan's sovereignty or the lives of its citizens. Sudan is not a 'backyard' for anyone, and it must not become an open arena for strikes and secret understandings. Any talk of a Sudanese threat to Egypt cannot be separated from reports of strikes inside Sudan, the map placing the targeted site within its borders, and the media claim of an existing Sudanese agreement or knowledge of it. What is required today is to stop the escalation and reveal the truth. As for continuing the bombing, justifying it, or covering up its circumstances, in parallel with a discourse that portrays Sudan as a creeping enemy, it paves the way for a confrontation and war from which neither people benefits. Dr. Ahmed Tijani Sid Ahmed, a founding member of the Sudan Founding Coalition 'Tasis'.