The devastating conflict in Sudan has reached a critical juncture, leaving the world grappling with a dire humanitarian crisis. With over 14 million people displaced and a staggering death toll that may exceed 40,000, the situation demands urgent attention. The United States, in a significant shift, is now contemplating an extensive expansion of sanctions against both the Sudanese army and the Rapid Support Forces (RSF) as diplomatic efforts for a ceasefire continue to falter. But here's where it gets controversial: could this move be too little, too late, or will it finally pressure the warring parties into submission? And this is the part most people miss: the intricate web of regional influences, from Saudi Arabia and the UAE to Egypt, each backing different factions, complicates any path to peace.
Earlier this year, former President Donald Trump announced his involvement in ending the war, following a personal plea from Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman. Trump’s son-in-law, Massad Boulos, has been at the forefront of these efforts for months, yet his attempts to broker a ceasefire have largely been in vain. The US Secretary of State, Marco Rubio, boldly declared Trump as ‘the only leader capable of resolving the Sudan crisis,’ a statement that has sparked both hope and skepticism. An Arab diplomat remarked, ‘Trump injects momentum into peace processes, but it’s what we do with it that truly matters.’
Behind the scenes, the warring factions have been warned of impending harsher sanctions if they continue to obstruct peace efforts. Meanwhile, Norway is taking a proactive step by inviting diverse representatives of Sudanese society to Oslo to outline a roadmap for restoring civilian governance post-conflict. This initiative highlights the international community’s growing impatience with the stalemate.
The conflict’s complexity deepens when examining the roles of external powers. Saudi Arabia and Egypt have largely supported the Sudanese army, while the UAE has backed the RSF. But here’s the contentious question: Is the UAE’s involvement, which it denies despite substantial evidence, inadvertently fueling the conflict? Additionally, the Saudis’ insistence on preserving Sudan’s ‘legitimate institutions’—a euphemism for maintaining the Islamist-influenced army—has further muddied the waters. Trump’s success may hinge on privately persuading the UAE to reconsider its stance and encouraging the Saudis to soften their position.
The UN’s grim reports underscore the urgency. Since the RSF’s capture of Bara in North Kordofan on October 25, at least 269 civilians have been killed through airstrikes, artillery shelling, and summary executions. The humanitarian crisis has been exacerbated by the world’s worst displacement situation, with millions in desperate need of aid.
In September, the so-called ‘quad’—the US, Saudi Arabia, UAE, and Egypt—proposed a three-month humanitarian truce leading to a nine-month political process aimed at establishing civilian rule. The RSF initially feigned acceptance but continued hostilities, while the army outright rejected the plan, accusing the quad of bias. This rejection not only derailed the peace process but also frustrated Boulos, who had invested significant effort in the initiative. The army’s refusal stems from its fear of losing power, as the proposal calls for its disbandment.
Norway’s Deputy Foreign Minister, Andreas Motzfeldt Kravik, emphasized during his visit to Port Sudan, ‘Without a ceasefire, Sudan will continue to fragment, with grave consequences for the entire region.’ Norway’s plan to convene civilian representatives in Oslo aims to prepare for a post-conflict transition to civilian governance.
Adding another layer of complexity, Trump’s threat to designate the Muslim Brotherhood as a foreign terrorist organization—supported by the House Foreign Relations Committee—could weaken the Sudanese army, which is often accused of having ties to the group. This move, however, has sparked debate over its potential impact on the conflict dynamics.
The White House’s renewed focus on Sudan has also been driven by reports of the army’s potential port lease to Russia and allegations of chemical weapons use, which the army has denied access to UN investigators to verify. These developments have raised international concerns about Sudan becoming a proxy battleground for global powers.
The UAE, a staunch opponent of political Islamism, argues that eradicating the Muslim Brotherhood’s influence must be central to the West’s approach in the region. Speaking at Chatham House, UAE Minister of State Lana Nusseibeh stated, ‘The solution lies in restoring Sudan to a broad-based civilian government. Neither the RSF nor the army has a legitimate claim to shape Sudan’s future, given their grave violations.’
As the conflict intensifies, the UN’s human rights chief, Volker Türk, issued a dire warning of ‘a new wave of atrocities’ in the Kordofan region. He urged influential states to take immediate action to halt the fighting and stem the flow of arms fueling the conflict.
Is the international community doing enough to end this crisis, or are geopolitical interests overshadowing humanitarian needs? What role should external powers play in mediating the conflict, and how can civilian voices be amplified in the peace process? We invite you to share your thoughts and engage in this critical discussion.
