Leaked intelligence sheds new light on Sudan military’s alleged chlorine weapons programme

NAIROBI, Kenya, Sep 7— The war in Sudan is facing renewed scrutiny over allegations that the Sudanese Armed Forces (SAF) under General Abdel Fattah al-Burhan developed and deployed chlorine-based weapons, with newly reported intelligence documents offering the most detailed account yet of an alleged programme to manufacture chemical munitions.

Investigations published on September 5 by The New York Times and The Washington Post, based on more than 150 leaked intelligence records, photographs, videos and intercepted communications, describe an alleged effort that began in 2024 as the SAF sought to gain an advantage over the Mohamed Hamdan Dagalo-led Rapid Support Forces (RSF) during the battle for Khartoum.

The documents reportedly include weapons blueprints, accounts of testing operations and communications describing efforts to conceal the programme after it came to the attention of US authorities.

They also raise questions about how chlorine may have been obtained, identifying at least two possible supply routes.

The allegations are particularly significant because chlorine is widely used for legitimate civilian purposes, especially water purification, but can cause severe injury or death when deliberately released at high concentrations.

The alleged programme emerged during the Khartoum stalemate.

According to The New York Times, the SAF turned to chemical weapons in early 2024 as RSF fighters maintained control over large parts of Khartoum, creating a strategic stalemate for the army.

The leaked records reportedly identify Brigadier General Tariq Hussein as a central figure in the alleged programme from July 2024.

Intercepted communications cited in the investigation indicate that Hussein proposed using chlorine to provide SAF forces with a battlefield advantage.

The records reportedly include prototype designs for an explosive warhead containing about 33 pounds of chlorine gas, with production beginning in July 2024.

The documents further describe testing and efforts to develop a system capable of delivering chlorine as part of military operations.

Questions over chlorine supplies

One of the most consequential aspects of the leaked material is the uncertainty surrounding the alleged programme’s access to chlorine.

The Washington Post reported that the intelligence records describe more than one potential source, including a shipment that allegedly entered Sudan through Egypt.

One account refers to the arrival of 20 chlorine tanks through Egypt, a quantity that correspondence reportedly estimated could theoretically produce about 1,100 munitions.

Other records point to chlorine cylinders held at water-treatment facilities.

Among the facilities mentioned is the Al-Manara water-treatment station in Khartoum, which was involved in efforts to maintain access to treated water during the conflict.

The reported link to civilian water infrastructure, however, does not establish that humanitarian supplies were diverted for military use.

In the report, UNICEF confirmed that it supplied chlorine to the Khartoum State Water Corporation between 2023 and 2025 for use at six water-treatment stations, including Al-Manara.

The agency said its records contain no evidence that chlorine it supplied was diverted or misused.

Any diversion of humanitarian supplies for military purposes would violate the conditions under which such assistance was provided.

The leaked material, as reported, does not establish that chlorine supplied by UNICEF was subsequently incorporated into the alleged weapons.

The presence of chlorine at a water-treatment facility is not, by itself, evidence of military diversion, nor does it implicate a humanitarian organisation in the alleged weapons programme.

Aid supply chains under scrutiny

If an independent investigation were to establish that chlorine intended for civilian water systems was diverted into a weapons programme, however, the implications would extend well beyond Sudan’s battlefield.

It would raise questions about the security of humanitarian supply chains, the monitoring of dual-use materials and the vulnerability of civilian infrastructure in conflict zones.

The reported Egyptian supply route also requires independent verification, including determining who purchased the chlorine, where it originated, how it entered Sudan, and what happened to the shipment after crossing the border.

US had already sanctioned Sudan over chemical weapons allegations.

The latest revelations come after the United States imposed sanctions on Sudan in May 2025 over allegations that the SAF had used chemical weapons during the conflict in 2024.

The measures took effect on July 20, 2025.

Sudanese authorities based in Port Sudan have repeatedly rejected accusations that the military produces, stockpiles or uses chemical weapons, maintaining that the country complies with its obligations under the Chemical Weapons Convention.

The latest reports are therefore likely to intensify scrutiny of the SAF leadership and increase calls for an independent investigation into the allegations.

Why chlorine is dangerous

Chlorine is a yellow-green gas that can cause serious injury when inhaled. It is highly irritating to the eyes and respiratory system and can damage the conjunctiva, throat, airways and lungs.

At sufficiently high concentrations, exposure can cause severe breathing difficulties, pulmonary injury and death.

Its widespread civilian use makes chlorine different from chemicals produced exclusively for warfare.

The same substance can be essential for keeping drinking water safe while also posing a danger when deliberately concentrated and released as a weapon.

The use of chlorine as a weapon dates back more than a century

During World War I, Germany launched one of the earliest large-scale chemical attacks using chlorine gas at Ypres, Belgium, on April 22, 1915.

A century later, chlorine again became associated with battlefield attacks, particularly during the Syrian civil war, where international investigators and rights groups documented allegations of chlorine being used against populated areas, including through improvised barrel bombs.

For Sudan’s civilians, already caught between rival armed forces, the latest allegations raise the prospect of yet another layer of danger in a conflict marked by attacks on civilian infrastructure and a deepening humanitarian crisis.