The question of unity between Egypt and Sudan has received extensive scholarly attention, with most studies focusing on the monarchy’s efforts to preserve both polities as a single geopolitical entity. A prevailing view holds that the Free Officers abandoned this project, relinquishing Egypt’s claims to Sudan. Drawing on materials from the Egyptian National Archives and the National Archives in London, this article shows instead that unity with Sudan remained a core objective of the new military regime. I trace how an ostensibly secular regime strategically deployed religion in pursuit of this objective. I demonstrate that transnational networks of al-Azhar and Sufi orders were central to the Free Officers’ efforts to maintain Egyptian hegemony in Sudan. This analysis offers new insight into the religious diplomacy of the post-1952 regime, complicating our understanding of a key episode in Egyptian–Sudanese relations and highlighting the interplay between religion and statecraft in shaping Egyptian politics, especially under Nasser.

This article examines the early history of Iranian communism through two Persian translations of The Communist Manifesto (1923 and 1951), situating them within broader debates on Soviet cultural politics, Iranian modernism, and the politics of translation. By analyzing the rhetorical strategies and conceptual vocabularies employed by translators, the study highlights how Persian intellectuals mediated Marxism through local traditions of political thought and literary modernism. The 1923 translation by Sayyid Muhammad Dihgan drew on Perso-Islamic notions of justice and temporality, asserting Iran’s coevalness with the West and aligning Marxist concepts with late Qajar reformist discourse. In contrast, the 1951 Moscow-sponsored translation, produced under the auspices of the Tudeh Party, reflected Cold War cultural rivalries, privileging secular and nationalist vocabularies and erasing Islamic political resonances. Juxtaposing these two translations, the article rethinks Iranian Marxism not as a mere extension of Soviet influence but as a contested field of cultural mediation and conceptual innovation.