Darfur follow ups: Mohamed Osman
In essence, a strategic narrative is the manner in which a state articulates its identity ts history, its aspirations, and its standing in the world across the spheres of economics, politics, and development. It reflects how the state views its people and how it presents itself to its regional neighbors and to the global community. Consequently, in my estimation, there are three fundamental determinants essential to the completeness of a state’s narrative:
First:-
The narrative is not confined solely to state or government communications rather, it extends far beyond that to the stage of fostering a global public perception of the state encompassing its positioning, its ambitions, and its people.
Second:-
The task of formulating a strategic narrative is not the exclusive responsibility of the state’s or government’s communications apparatus. Indeed, at a certain level, the state’s true narrative can be discerned within the popular discourse in the words spoken by its citizens and residents, as well as by its civil society organizations, non-governmental institutions, and private sector entities.
Third:-
The extent to which a state can today cultivate a robust system of “soft power” and global influence is directly proportional to the strength and coherence of its strategic narrative. Absent such a narrative, the collective efforts of the institutions, strategies, and initiatives aimed at achieving these objectives remain fragmented difficult to steer effectively and challenging to measure in terms of actual impact.
A narrative is not merely a story or an interpretation rather, it is a comprehensive system capable of shaping reality, guiding decision-making, and molding collective perception. Through it, legitimacy is conferred, ethical frameworks are constructed, and the roles of victim and aggressor are defined. It is the narrative that determines who is “worthy of defense” and who is “deserving of punishment” who is “seen in the media spotlight” and who is “forgotten in the shadows.”
By way of example though certainly not exclusively the numerous military interventions undertaken by the United States as a global power have led us to realize that every war possesses its own distinct narrative. If we trace the military history of U.S. conflicts, we observe that whenever the nation intends to launch a war against another state, it engages in a lengthy period of groundwork. This involves crafting a narrative marketed through various media channels that serves to justify the impending military intervention, thereby securing the support of both American and international public opinion. Typically, these narratives center on themes of American national identity, national security, the safety of American citizens, and moral rectitude. They also frequently emphasize the need to counter a specific ideology, or to confront a political regime that having been a close ally in the recent past has seemingly overnight transformed into an adversary and an enemy.
The American narrative frames any conflict it wages against a foreign state as an inevitable struggle against what it characterizes as “evil” or “tyranny” forces that allegedly threaten its very existence. It portrays the conflict as a battle essential for safeguarding America’s survival, as well as for preserving freedom throughout the entire world.
Furthermore, the American narrative regarding any dispute or military intervention relies heavily on the moral justification of war. It frames the conflict as a battle waged in defense of humanity and democracy or even in defense of justice and the restoration of rights with the aim of rescuing others from inhumane treatment, promoting democratic values, or upholding human rights as defined by American standards.
Consequently, this narrative strives to construct two distinct camps:
a camp of heroes and a camp of enemies. The objective is to engineer a sharp global divide pitting “us” (the Americans, the heroes) against “them” (the villains in the opposing camp) which might comprise Sudan, China, Venezuela, Afghanistan, or Iran. To achieve this, the American media employs satirical caricatures or publicizes atrocities allegedly committed by those it deems enemies even if these atrocities (which are sometimes fabricated) are of the very same nature as those perpetrated by America itself.
Subsequently, the American media proceeds to amplify these accounts in order to inflame the sentiments of both American and global public opinion, thereby inciting public indignation and animosity. The primary objective behind the excessive promotion of a fabricated narrative is to convince both the American and global publics that military intervention constitutes the only viable option and, furthermore, that it will lead to a just resolution of the conflict and a brighter future. This mirrors the tactics currently employed by the warring factions in Sudan: each side strives to construct a narrative that legitimizes its war against the opposing party, aiming to garner greater local, regional, and international sympathy while validating the veracity of its own account.
By way of illustration though certainly not exclusively the designation of the global Muslim Brotherhood (and particularly its branch in Tunisia) served as a foundational step in legitimizing the American war narrative directed against Iran. To effectively “clip the wings” of the Iranian regime, it became necessary to construct a narrative of war against extremist groups worldwide. This strategy was recently reinforced within the U.S. counter-terrorism plan for 2026, which specifically designated the same group the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt and Sudan. Consequently, the war in Sudan is being utilized as a lever or a key component within the broader American narrative regarding its conflict with Iran. likewise, the Sudanese crisis and the global sympathy it has evoked is being exploited as a pivotal element in the U.S. war on terror narrative.
This is not merely an analytical exercise rather, it serves to highlight the mechanics of narrative construction during wartime ،
a process designed to ensure that the resulting narrative is perceived as morally acceptable in the eyes of the world.
In conflicts of this nature, the most critical question is not merely, “What happened?” but rather, “Who is telling the story?
How?
And in whose interest?
It is here that the crisis of contemporary political media becomes apparent, as the priority of raw truth recedes before the imperative of “perception management.” Media outlets aligned with a particular global axis tend to frame the conflict as an act of deterrence, a rebalancing of power, or a containment of a regional threat. Conversely, platforms whether supportive of or opposed to the dominant narrative tend to portray the conflict as a full-blown colonial aggression targeting the state or the entire region. A prime example of this is the narrative propagated by the Sudanese military alleging the involvement of “diaspora Arabs,” (arab alshatat) foreign nationals, and mercenaries from Chad, the Central African Republic, Cameroon, and Niger. This narrative was crafted to elicit sympathy from local, regional, and international audiences by instilling a sense of imminent danger, thereby rallying support for the Sudanese military as the defender of the land and national sovereignty. Amidst this landscape, other platforms emerge that engage in a different form of selectivity: they do not explicitly fabricate news, but rather reorder priorities omitting certain contexts, amplifying specific elements, and steering the audience toward
a predetermined political conclusion without ever stating it directly. Consequently, media disinformation in its current incarnation no longer relies solely on “fake news,” but also on “fragmented truths,” “decontextualized imagery,” and “analysis masquerading as news” in order to construct narratives that legitimize war.
It is here that we understand how media, in times of war, transforms from a mere conveyor of a crisis into its very architect. Every media narrative constructs its own specific “enemy,” selects its own specific audience, and fabricates its own specific lexicon. A single word can betray this positioning: it may be termed an “attack” by one party, a “defensive response” by another, or a “mutual escalation” by a third. The same applies to imagery of victims, scenes of destruction, broadcast timings, the tone of presenters, and the selection of guests. In the realm of political media, language is not merely a neutral vessel rather, it serves as a subtle instrument of manipulation capable of conferring or stripping away legitimacy, of transforming a victim into an accused party, a complicit actor into a mediator, or a neutral observer into a presumed accomplice.
This is precisely what is unfolding in the war in Sudan particularly within the “war of narratives” waged by guests appearing on television channels such as Al Jazeera, Al Hadath, or even national channels broadcasters, as well as through online news portals and civil society organization conferences.
The true battle here is not solely one of exchanging missiles, but rather a clash between competing narratives each striving to monopolize the definition of reality.
Consequently, the duty of responsible media becomes one of resisting the allure of propaganda, refusing to be drawn into the “either with me or against me” dichotomy, and maintaining a rigorous distinction between objective facts and subjective interpretations as well as between political stances and professional obligations. Not every alternative narrative is true, nor is every official narrative false. However, the danger arises when media outlets lose the courage to admit: “We do not yet know,” “This information remains unconfirmed, or “This is an opinion, not a fact. This is precisely where many journalistic platforms including major television networks have failed.
in constructing a narrative centered on the well-being of civilians uninvolved in the conflict, rather than crafting a narrative driven by political self-interest.
In Conclusion:
When civilians find themselves amidst military forces, they transform whether directly or indirectly into active agents in the construction of war narratives.
These narratives may serve as tools of resistance or as means to assert hegemony yet, they invariably reveal that war is not merely a clash of arms, but fundamentally a battle of narratives powerful stories with which the world engages and aligns itself.
It is a battle of calculated consciousness, determining when the war begins, what must transpire to achieve its objectives, and ultimately, declaring the victory of the narrative that proves most pervasive and influential among global policymakers.
