At a pivotal moment in the history of Sudan, which has been mired in a devastating war for more than two years, the administration of US President Donald Trump is seeking to invest its influence in major Arab capitals to extract a settlement that will end the bloodiest conflict in Africa that has caused the worst humanitarian crisis the world is witnessing today.
In a long article, Newsweek magazine discussed the conflict in Sudan in an analytical article by its senior foreign affairs editor, Tom O’Connor, in which he believes that the US administration’s mission in dealing with this intertwined conflict, which is fraught with deep local rivalries, widespread violations, and conflicts of international interests, seems very complex.
Read also
list of 2 itemsend of list
the plan
So far, the Trump administration has taken a two-track approach to the war, according to the author. At the international level, Washington is working with its partners in the Quartet to advance the five-point plan that was unveiled last September.
In a statement to Newsweek, a US State Department spokesman said that the United States continues to work with its partners in the Quartet, which includes Egypt, Saudi Arabia, and the UAE, to coordinate efforts aimed at achieving lasting peace in Sudan.
Including implementing the commitments contained in the joint statement issued on September 12, which focuses on securing a humanitarian truce, establishing a permanent ceasefire, advancing the transition to civilian rule, and stopping the external support that fuels the conflict.
American officials confirmed to the magazine that subsequent talks took place to strengthen this initiative amid deteriorating conditions.
According to the author, Trump’s plan to deal with the war in Sudan depends on a combination of diplomatic engagement and political pressure, as his administration continues its direct contacts with the two warring parties to pave the way for a ceasefire and ensure the arrival of humanitarian aid. American officials confirm that ending the war is a priority for President Trump personally.
Experts believe that the Trump administration’s decision to employ its influence and exert pressure on Arab partners when needed may prove more effective than the approach of his predecessor Joe Biden’s administration, which failed to advance a sustainable settlement to the war, as was recently demonstrated by its success in reaching a ceasefire in Gaza.
Alex de Waal, executive director of the World Peace Foundation at Tufts University, told Newsweek that the RSF’s recent control of the city of El Fasher, the capital of North Darfur state, “despite its catastrophic consequences of famine, mass displacement, and instability on the Red Sea coasts, it is far more dangerous than the potential political gains for neighboring countries, which makes the call for peace completely logical.”
De Waal believes that the fall of El Fasher “may open a small window of hope, but Sudan’s history shows that each party seeks revenge before negotiating, or seeks to exploit its victory to achieve field gains.”
De Waal: The fall of El Fasher may open a small window of hope, but Sudan’s history shows that each party seeks revenge before negotiating, or seeks to exploit its victory to achieve field gains.
He added that the previous Biden administration failed to deal with the Sudanese crisis because it did not involve senior figures in direct dialogues with Arab capitals, but the current Secretary of State Marco Rubio seemed to have set the correct framework for the first phase of the peace process.
An international conflict of intertwined interests
Despite all this, the American move clashes with intertwined interests represented by regional and international parties supporting both sides of the conflict.
But Liam Carr, head of the Africa team at the American Enterprise Institute’s Critical Threats Project, told Newsweek that “the White House needs to act more decisively on the RSF and its foreign links.”
He added that the United States imposed sanctions on both parties, “but it placed emphasis on the Sudanese army, and the Rapid Support Forces must be treated with the same standard.”
Carr believes that Trump’s deal-based diplomacy has pros and cons. This approach helped achieve settlements between the Democratic Republic of Congo and Rwanda, and between Egypt and Ethiopia, despite the situation remaining fragile.
He said, “The reciprocal diplomacy adopted by Trump could help conclude an agreement between the Quartet countries so that everyone would obtain mutual gains and pledge to curb their aggression in Sudan, which would stop external support and pave the way for a ceasefire and then lead to broader negotiations.”
But at the same time, he warned that this diplomacy “may become harmful if it grants excessive rewards to the aggressors and does not address the root causes of the conflict,” stressing the need to put more pressure into the equation, especially against the Rapid Support Forces and their allies in the region.
O’Connor noted in his article that Yasser Zidan, a researcher at the University of Washington and former professor at the University of Khartoum, agrees with this proposal, but he believes that Trump’s reciprocal diplomacy may achieve a breakthrough if it balances pressure and reward.
In Zidane’s view, this approach is “more important than the Quartet framework itself, which has repeatedly failed to provide tangible results,” pointing to the American strategy that directly confronts regional dynamics, and places the protection of Sudanese civilians and their right to political participation at its core, “which is the most capable of achieving true peace and fair accountability.”
Zidane: The American strategy that directly confronts regional dynamics, and places the protection of Sudanese civilians and their right to political participation at its core, “is the most capable of achieving real peace and fair accountability.”
The roots of war
Some statistics estimate that more than 150,000 people were killed as a direct result of the war or the humanitarian crisis it caused. About 9 million people have been internally displaced, and more than 3 million have fled the country, in light of the spread of malnutrition, disease and poverty.
In his article, O’Connor traces the roots of the conflict to a conflict between “the two most powerful men” in Sudan after the overthrow of President Omar al-Bashir in April 2019 following popular protests.
Subsequently, a transitional government made up of civilians and military personnel took over the reins of power in the country, which lasted for two years and 6 months, led by Lieutenant General Abdel Fattah Al-Burhan and Prime Minister Abdallah Hamdok.
Some statistics estimate that more than 150,000 people were killed as a direct result of the war or the humanitarian crisis it caused. About 9 million people have been internally displaced, and more than 3 million have fled the country
That period witnessed an improvement in relations with Washington at the time, especially after Sudan joined the “Abraham Accords” led by its godfather, Trump, in exchange for the lifting of sanctions in early 2021.
But the writer says that Al-Burhan dissolved the Transitional Sovereign Council in October 2021 and established military rule, which ignited tensions with Mohamed Hamdan Dagalo (Hemedti), the commander of the Rapid Support Forces, which evolved from the Arab-majority Janjaweed militias that fought in the Darfur War (2003-2020).
The fighting broke out in April 2023 when Hemedti’s forces launched massive attacks on army positions across the country, and took control of parts of Khartoum and other cities.
Despite its recent expulsion from the capital, it has made significant progress in Darfur, where its seizure of El Fasher effectively divided Sudan into two parts, as the author of the article put it.