It is a Déjà Vu: The Chemical Stuff Disinformation Could Sudan Make Use of its El-Shifa Pharmaceutical Plant’s Experienc
13 September, 2026
- Why recurrence to Chemical use disinformation
There is no doubt that people abhor the use of chemical weapons in general and against civilians and civilian infrastructure in particular. People have seen the use of chemical nuclear weapons in Nagasaki, Hiroshima, in Vietnam, in Iraq, for instance. The results were catastrophic, and lasting, with people up-to-date giving birth to deformed babies.
When toddlers are pulled out of the rubble in ossified shape, when newborn are deformed, when abortion becomes unbearably cruel for woman, the image is bad and therefore the use of chemical weapons is criminalized, morally condemned, ethically rejected.
It is thus natural people get emotional whenever a government or a regime or a country is accused of posing a threaten or hinting to use or possess chemical weapons.
But ironically, it is exactly this emotional aspect that is being manipulated and politicized to serve immoral vested interests. If this element does not exist, then it had to be invented and used by simply resorting a huge, but credibly crafted, misinformation campaign.
- The disinformation media campaign preceding and following the attack
This is why it is expected that, as a part of disinformation, the issue of chemical weapons would be intensely used to demean, tarnish and criminalize another regime, government or country.
The disinformation campaign is spurred by regular patterns: A government of a leader, in this case a president of the United States of America, has an issue at home. This is normally scandal of moral, political or economic dimension that needs diversion of attention from the home focus to international arena focus. This is meant to transfer pressure and obliterate the public interest and media scrutiny at home. The second elements is lack of security and moral justifications to hit another country and be able to carry out a quick and rapid strike in way that gives no time for brain use or common sense application: the quickest and emotionally charged and publicly acceptable option is to accuse a foreign regime or a country of harboring and entertaining international terrorism , or hatching and incubating violent Islamic fundamentalism or is preparing chemical weapons that would be ultimately used against innocent civilians, at home or abroad.
The whole enterprise would be coupled with intensive media campaign that would-miraculously-later on disappear when after the strike and harm have been inflicted but no concrete evidence to substantiate the accusation is found.
This has been applied in the past in Iraq, in Libya, Afghanistan, Somalia and Sudan. This is carried out after they have already provided the political and moral cover and justifications for directing a destructive blow to those countries and regimes.
Just see the historically recent use of this ploy to destruct Iraq, to silence Syria, to obliterate groups in Afghanistan, to silence people in Libya, and to send an example of intimidation by destroying the El-Shifa pharmaceutical plant in the Sudan. In all these examples where destruction and bombardment of the target countries have dumped them back to Stone Age, no chemical weapons were found in either Iraq, or Sudan or Libya and Syria
For the Sudan there are these two sides of the coin fit superbly
- The El-Shifa pharmaceutical plant 1998, August, 20th
Former US President Bill Clinton was morally drenched in the Monica Lewinsky sex scandal; he lied, not only to his wife and to the lawmakers in his country, but equally to the whole American nation. And elections were around. His rating, plumed not because of the moral scandal with Monica, but because he lied under oath. He was almost impeached.
They quickly had to find a way out: Afghanistan and the Sudan. There the criteria of violent fundamentalism and chemical weapon use are in abundance, as portrayed by the media campaign at the time.
That evening while rockets were heading for Afghanistan and the Sudan, Clinton announced live on TV that America was bombarding terrorist stronghold and a factory producing ingredients for chemical weapon in the Sudan. They hit the factory which is located in the middle of a residential area: if it were producing chemical weapons stuff then how many people were at risk, hundreds and thousands. But on that evening non body was killed as there was no chemical stuff, it was an ordinary factory producing malaria and veterinary vaccines and medication. It was a fiasco.
- How Sudan turned the attack into a political fiasco?
It had before the attack, argued that this factory was not producing any chemical weapons ingredients. No body listened. It said the Americans could send experts, nobody listened.
When it was hit, Sudan promptly opened its doors for all journalists from call corners of the world to come and see for themselves. Hundreds poured into the country and they found out it was a fiasco. It was a scandal. But the Americans never apologized, never said they made a mistake. They only compensated the owner of the factory and the dilapidated soil of the factory and the debris remain witness to that aggression.
The same scenario followed in Iraq and in Somalia, and in all these cases it ended up with a scandal for the attackers: in Iraq, it was Collin Powel, who came out to tell the UN that this was a horrible mistake; Tony Blair did the same confessing that it was a disinformation. The same happened with Libya when the attack the Libyan leader and his baby, killing and maiming people, forcing the Libyan to ship the whole data and information and papers and everything proving it was a ploy. It was then repeated in Somalia, where American soldiers were dragged on the sand in a humiliating way, in Afghanistan, etc.
What is new in the Sudan and why now ?
This time again it is the economy; the USA has almost controlled Congo now, a source of huge minerals badly needed. It was brokered by chief advisor for Arab and African affairs, Boulos Massad.
Massad is also responsible for handling the issue of the Sudan. Some countries and a rebellion movement lead a proxy war, it is sparing any US humiliation and it is spending money there in place of the USA. But recently in the Sudan, those leading a war of proxy have been sustaining defeat, they have been cornered. They committed horrible crimes and ethnic cleansing, but that was not enough to incriminate them. They brought mercenaries and drones attacking civilians and civilian assets. They were not criminalized. Then the Sudanese army started defeating the militias, and if the militia is defeated two things will be exposed, Those behind it will lose cover, and in the process of neck saving they will name those who got them in this moving sand. The militia’s possibility of it having a political say in the country, will shrink, thus the possibility of securing economic and material resources. Furthermore the moral and ethical loss would be huge on both those backing the militias and those who tried to save them via the UN security Council and other measures .
And as the US policy nowadays it to let other do its dirty work, they had to help alleviate the burden on the receding ranks of the militia, either through direct intervention or through resorting to international bodies to sanctions the Sudan and cripple its economy and handicap SAF troops in the field and frustrate its ability and maneuverability in the field.
One way to do this is via expanding the sanctions, to which are added the drones and the other UMV, and the second is to provide a moral and technical justification for making such sanctions sound right and ethically acceptable: this is where the accusation of SAF using chemical weapons is useful. Sudan denied the charge and rejected the accusation saying let the American come and visit the site they say show the use of chemical weapons, but Washington turned a deaf ear to the call turned down the invitations.
Conclusion
What should Sudan do: Simple and straight forwards: repeat the scenario of the 1998 El-Shifa pharmaceutical factory: open the doors for those media houses come and verify if there are really chemical weapons or if it were all but a disinformation campaign.
Post your comments
Photo of the Week
Cairo – (Sudanow) Taqa Al-Noor Mohamed Al-Noor, who topped Sudan's 2026 Secondary School Certificate examinations with a score of 97.7%, did not achieve this result on an easy, trouble-free path. Her journey was shaped by hard work, perseverance, and determination, amid educational and social circumstances that presented their own challenges. What makes her experience par...
More-
30 August, 2026
Stories from the Heart of the Battlefield From a University of Khartoum Professor to a Vegetable Seller in Cairo
Cairo (Sudanow) In one of Cairo’s neighborhoods, where the stories of passersby intersect with the details of everyday life, the story began with a quiet-faced Sudanese man standing behind a small vegetable stall. He carefully arranged tomatoes and greens, selling them with a smile. Few of those passing by knew that the man they addressed so simply had spent years of his life in lecture halls and scientific research labor...
Contact Us
Address: Sudan News Agency (SUNA) Building, Jamhoria Street, Khartoum - Sudan
Mobile:+249 909220011 / +249 912307547