The recent visit of Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman to Washington brought renewed attention to one of the many pressing issues facing US President Donald Trump: the Sudan war.
Although the White House has long expressed an interest in Sudan’s complex challenges – particularly the war between the Sudanese Armed Forces (SAF) and the Rapid Support Forces (RSF), ongoing since April 2023 – this interest appears to have intensified after Mohammed bin Salman’s visit.
For the US, national security in the Red Sea remains a paramount concern, as its priorities continue to be shaped by a focus on counterterrorism and regional stability. The White House has previously warned that the war in Sudan poses a direct threat to American national security.
The State Department has actively pursued efforts to lay the groundwork for peace, including several rounds of talks that culminated in a recent diplomatic push by the so-called Quad – comprising the US, Saudi Arabia, Egypt and the UAE – aimed at ending the war.
Trump’s assertion last week that the Sudan war was “not on my charts” prior to Mohammed bin Salman’s request for his intervention, appears less a strategic shift and more a gesture of appreciation towards the Saudi crown prince.
New MEE newsletter: Jerusalem Dispatch
Sign up to get the latest insights and analysis on
Israel-Palestine, alongside Turkey Unpacked and other MEE newsletters
It could also serve to frame Mohammed bin Salman as a credible regional leader and peace broker upon whom Washington can rely in Middle Eastern affairs. This signals Trump’s support for a Saudi-led role in regional diplomacy, and reflects his broader interest in peace-building efforts worldwide.
American engagement has intensified since Trump’s statement. On Friday, US Secretary of State Marco Rubio spoke over the phone with UAE Foreign Minister Sheikh Abdullah bin Zayed, signalling a deeper US involvement in Sudan and ongoing coordination with Quad partners.
The ‘forgotten war’
This renewed engagement, however, comes at a critically late stage. The United Nations has repeatedly described Sudan as facing one of the world’s most severe humanitarian crises. Earlier intervention could have saved lives, such as in the recent collapse of el-Fasher to RSF forces, preventing widespread atrocities against unarmed civilians, and mitigated a humanitarian disaster – which today includes shortages of clean water and food, the collapse of essential infrastructure, and mass displacement.
Internationally, Sudan has often been referred to as the “forgotten war”, with major global actors placing it low on their priority lists. Trump’s entry into the peace process may temporarily shift international attention, before it inevitably fades again.
If this moment is seized, Sudan may finally glimpse a civilian-led future. If not, the opportunity may once again dissolve into tragedy
The Sudanese Sovereignty Council, led by President Abdel Fattah al-Burhan, was among the first to welcome Saudi Arabia’s efforts and to respond positively to Trump’s remarks – despite weeks of implicitly rejecting the Quad’s proposed humanitarian ceasefire. This shift could be due to the elevation of the peace process under Trump’s direct oversight, or perhaps amid assurances given to Burhan over possible internal backlash against accepting American mediation.
After Burhan’s post on X (formerly Twitter) thanking Saudi Arabia and the US, the country’s polarisation seemed to soften, as SAF supporters – including Ali Karti, secretary general of the Sudanese Islamic Movement – expressed renewed hopes for stability and lasting peace.
The RSF, meanwhile, welcomed US involvement, but accused “those who control the army’s decisions” of obstructing peace. The group also emphasised its desire to address the root causes of the crisis and build a “new Sudan”.
But the situation shifted rapidly again on Sunday, when Burhan announced that Sudan could not accept the UAE as a mediator in the conflict, describing the Quad’s peace initiative as the “worst yet”.
This was followed by an announcement from the RSF on Monday, in which leader Mohamed Hamdan Dagalo, also known as “Hemedti”, announced his group’s agreement to an immediate three-month ceasefire. “We hope the Quad countries will play their role in pushing the other side to engage with this step,” he added.
Major challenges ahead
What happens next remains unclear. It would be misguided to assume that the Saudi-Trump arrangement will fundamentally alter the existing Quad roadmap, which was designed and backed by the White House. Yet while Trump’s involvement may not favour one side or serve specific domestic political agendas, it could accelerate implementation of a deal.
Regardless of what happens next in the immediate term, significant challenges lie ahead on the road to peace in Sudan.
Actors benefitting from the war may simply outlast peace initiatives. While Burhan’s public gratitude creates a rare diplomatic opening, it does not eliminate entrenched interests or the backing of external supporters who have funded the conflict for years, amid a regional struggle for influence.
Why is the UAE involved in Sudan’s bloody civil war?
Read More »
Peace enforcement will be difficult. A humanitarian ceasefire may collapse without independent monitoring, and violations could rapidly erode fragile trust. The prospect of a civilian-led government is deeply contested, and if perceived as externally imposed, it risks rejection.
Even if the public supports peace, hidden resistance – such as clandestine arms flows and covert alliances – may sabotage progress.
If a truce takes hold, it could create crucial humanitarian space, enabling aid delivery, saving lives, and slowly rebuilding trust. A credible transition could pave the way for civilian governance and reshape narratives about Sudan’s future. The mediating bloc could also leverage collective pressure to extract meaningful concessions from the warring sides.
But core power structures may remain intact, including systems of military control, financial and weapons networks, and the marginalisation of civil society. The truce could prove temporary, unravelling once political negotiations begin.
Trump’s involvement is a double-edged sword: it brings political weight and leverage, but risks tying Sudan’s future to transactional geopolitical interests. Burhan’s public response represents a meaningful opening, but success will require genuine enforcement mechanisms, an inclusive transition rooted in Sudanese ownership, and credible guarantees.
If this moment is seized, Sudan may finally glimpse a civilian-led future. If not, the opportunity may once again dissolve into tragedy.
The views expressed in this article belong to the author and do not necessarily reflect the editorial policy of Middle East Eye.
