Sudan Army Reclaims Al‑Zubara After Repelling RSF and SPLM‑N Attack

The Sudanese Armed Forces (SAF) announced on Tuesday that it had repelled an attack launched by a joint force of the Rapid Support Forces (RSF) and the Sudan People's Liberation Movement–North (SPLM‑N) in the Blue Nile state. The confrontation, which began in the early hours of Monday, ended with the SAF regaining control of the key town of Al‑Zubara, according to a statement issued by the Ministry of Defence. The incident comes amid a protracted civil war that has pitted the government’s regular army against the RSF, a paramilitary organization with roots in the Janjaweed militias, and has recently drawn in regional rebel groups such as the SPLM‑N.

The war in Sudan erupted in April 2023 when a dispute over the control of the RSF’s leadership and the distribution of oil revenues spiraled into armed conflict. The SAF, which has grown to an estimated 300,000 personnel in 2024, has sought to reassert state authority over the country’s vast resources and strategic regions. In contrast, the RSF, once a 40,000‑strong force that had fought in Yemen, now commands roughly 70,000 fighters, many of whom have returned from foreign deployments. The SPLM‑N, a former liberation movement that has long sought autonomy for the north‑east, has aligned itself with the RSF in an attempt to counterbalance the SAF’s influence.

Blue Nile, located in Sudan’s central corridor, is of particular tactical importance because it sits along the Nile River and hosts several oil fields and agricultural zones that supply the capital, Khartoum. Control of the state allows forces to command river traffic and secure supply lines that stretch to the Red Sea coast. The recent clash, which saw armored vehicles and artillery used on both sides, highlighted the fluid nature of frontlines in the war, where towns can switch allegiances within hours.

The SAF’s claim of a successful defense was corroborated by satellite imagery released by independent analysts, showing the disappearance of RSF vehicles from the outskirts of Al‑Zubara after midnight. However, the RSF and SPLM‑N have denied the assault, claiming instead that the SAF had launched a pre‑emptive strike that caused significant casualties among their ranks. Humanitarian groups on the ground reported that several civilians were caught in the crossfire, with displacement already noted in nearby villages.

The incident underscores the broader dynamics of the Sudanese conflict, where the RSF’s paramilitary structure and the SAF’s conventional army are competing for control over resources and political power. The involvement of the SPLM‑N adds a regional dimension, as the group’s long‑standing grievances over marginalization in the north‑east could potentially destabilise neighbouring Ethiopia and South Sudan if the conflict spreads. Analysts suggest that the RSF’s alliance with the SPLM‑N is partly aimed at leveraging their local knowledge and network of militia fighters to challenge the SAF’s dominance in the central highlands.

Beyond the immediate military implications, the clash in Blue Nile has ripple effects on the region’s security and economic landscape. The state’s oil fields are a critical revenue source for the Sudanese government; any disruption in their operation could tighten the fiscal squeeze that already hampers Sudan’s fragile economy. Moreover, the Nile’s water flow, which supports irrigation for millions in the Nile Basin, could be affected if the war escalates further along the river corridor, raising concerns for downstream countries such as Egypt and Ethiopia. The instability also threatens to exacerbate refugee flows, as communities displaced from conflict zones seek safety across borders.

In short, the SAF’s claim of repelling an RSF‑SPLM‑N assault in Blue Nile marks a temporary shift in a war that is far from over. The battle illustrates the persistent contest over strategic assets and the entangled alliances that define Sudan’s current crisis. For the wider region, the ongoing conflict remains a flashpoint that could undermine economic stability, strain diplomatic relations among Nile Basin countries, and challenge humanitarian efforts in an already volatile environment.