That’s a loaded but very real concern — because humanitarian acts like this have both moral and security dimensions.

Here’s the breakdown:

1. The Humanitarian vs. Security Dilemma

• On one hand: South Sudan’s move can be seen as a purely humanitarian gesture — sheltering civilians caught in a brutal war.

• On the other hand: Any refugee intake from a conflict zone dominated by militant factions like Hamas (and indirectly Hezbollah) carries the risk of militant infiltration.

• Iran’s regional proxies have long used displacement crises to move operatives, spread ideology, and build sleeper networks — something African states have historically underestimated until it became a security crisis.

2. The Iran–Hamas–Hezbollah Link

• Hamas is an offshoot of the Muslim Brotherhood, but has received heavy financial, logistical, and weapons support from Iran.

• Hezbollah, Iran’s Lebanese proxy, has well-documented networks in West Africa, especially for fundraising, smuggling, and recruitment.

• Hosting refugees from Gaza without strict vetting could risk importing sympathizers, recruiters, or even militants into East Africa — a region already struggling with Al-Shabaab and other Islamist insurgencies.

3. Africa as a Strategic Backdoor

• Iran has been quietly expanding influence in parts of Africa through:

  • Religious institutions (Shia seminaries and charities)

  • Economic partnerships

  • Smuggling routes

• If Gazan refugees include individuals tied (directly or ideologically) to militant movements, Africa could become a new staging ground for Iran’s proxy network — adding to instability.

4. Why South Sudan Is Especially Vulnerable

• Weak border control and corruption make it easy to bypass security screening.

• The country already faces tribal violence, rebel groups, and economic collapse.

• Any infiltration by extremist networks could destabilize neighboring Uganda, Kenya, and Ethiopia — countries already under occasional jihadist threat.

5. The Balancing Act

• Accepting refugees is not automatically importing militancy — the vast majority are likely innocent civilians.

• But without tight intelligence cooperation and screening at entry, the risk is real.

• The challenge for South Sudan is whether it can be both humanitarian and security-conscious — or whether it will unintentionally open a door that Iran and its proxies can exploit.

Bottom line:
Yes, it’s possible that in humanitarian goodwill, South Sudan could also be importing an ideological cancer that Iran, Hamas, and Hezbollah cultivated — unless there’s robust, external-supported vetting. History shows militant movements often hide in refugee flows, and Africa’s weak borders make it a tempting target.