UAE (Dubai) and Israel’s Involvement in the Sudan War: Resource Trafficking, Arms Networks, and Political Influence

Mar 11

The Sudan war has drawn in a web of external powers whose financial, political, and military footprints shape the country’s fate. Among the most discussed actors are the United Arab Emirates (UAE) — particularly through Dubai — and Israel, whose influence manifests through indirect, strategic, and economic channels. Below are 10 detailed, sourced points exploring their involvement, grounded in the most reliable reporting available.

1. Massive wartime gold flows through the UAE

Sudan’s gold exports to the UAE surged during the war years, with the UAE importing the vast majority of Sudan’s legal gold — a trade worth hundreds of millions to over a billion dollars in recent years. This trade gave the UAE major leverage over wartime financing in Sudan.
([OEC][1])

2. UN and investigative reporting linked UAE flights to arms supplies

Investigations documented dozens of UAE flights to an airstrip used to move cargo toward Sudan; UN experts and Reuters reported the flights and raised credible questions that the cargo included military supplies for the RSF (Rapid Support Forces). The UAE denies supplying weapons.
([Reuters][2])

3. Human Rights Watch and other monitors found new weaponry sourced through complex networks

HRW reported that both warring parties acquired new systems (armed drones, anti-tank guided missiles, etc.) whose supply chains include companies and intermediaries in multiple countries — some links pointing toward Emirati-registered entities. Exact provenance is often opaque.
([Human Rights Watch][3])

4. Leaked/forensic evidence alleged Emirati personnel or matériel in RSF-held areas

Leaked documents and reports (including passport finds and imagery cited by investigative outlets) suggested the presence of Emirati IDs and modified munitions in RSF areas — evidence that alarmed international observers and fed Sudanese accusations. The UAE disputes the interpretation of those materials.
([The Guardian][4])

5. Sudan took the UAE to the International Court of Justice (ICJ)

In early 2025 Sudan filed an ICJ case accusing the UAE of complicity in genocide by materially supporting RSF attacks in Darfur. The case raised international attention about state responsibility and cross-border military assistance. (The ICJ later said it lacked jurisdiction on the emergency measures Sudan requested.)
([Reuters][5])

6. The UAE’s political and economic incentives: ports, farms, and regional influence

Analysts argue the UAE’s actions in Sudan are shaped by long-term strategic aims — securing access to resources (gold, farmland, logistics hubs) and building influence in the Red Sea / Horn of Africa corridor. Those incentives help explain why powerful Gulf actors engage in Sudan despite reputational risks.
([Foreign Affairs][6])

7. Israel’s role is more indirect and strategic — normalization, intelligence ties, and mediation offers

After the 2020 normalization moves, Israel developed back-channel ties with some Sudanese actors and has positioned itself as a mediator in regional crises. Public reporting shows Israel watches Sudan through security and diplomatic lenses rather than mounting overt military interventions.
([Reuters][7])

8. Both states’ involvement is tied into regional rivalries and counter-influence against Iran and other actors

Gulf states (UAE, Saudi Arabia) and Israel view influence in Sudan as part of a broader contest with Iranian proxies and Islamist networks. This geopolitical logic helps explain support to local proxies and interest in Sudanese stability or fractured control.
([Foreign Affairs][6])

9. Smuggling and informal channels hide the true scale of resource trafficking

Multiple data points (discrepancies between Sudan production estimates and declared exports, unusually large UAE import figures via neighboring routes) indicate much gold likely moved through informal, cross-border smuggling routes before re-entering global markets. This makes documenting direct state culpability harder but suggests large-scale illicit flows.
([OEC][1])

10. International bodies and courts face limits; accountability is messy and slow

Even with reports, leaks, and state lawsuits, mechanisms (UN panels, courts) have constrained authority or jurisdiction. The ICJ decision on Sudan’s emergency measures illustrates how legal remedies can stall; meanwhile humanitarian catastrophe and illicit flows continue. That legal stalemate complicates efforts to stop external actors from fuelling conflicts by proxy.
([Reuters][8])

Elizabeth