U.S. Cancellation of Sudan Talks Was a Mistake

The United States unwisely cancelled a key meeting on Sudan’s civil war. The State Department called off a gathering with the Sudan Quad — Saudi Arabia, Egypt, and the United Arab Emirates — scheduled for July 30 in Washington, where the Trump administration aimed to propose a peace plan modeled on the Rwanda-Democratic Republic of the Congo agreement. The arrangement would have focused on equitably sharing Sudan’s vast mineral wealth — estimated at $350 billion in oil reserves and $80 billion in gold. The meeting’s cancellation indefinitely stalls this prudent plan, though a source told the Bloomberg news service that the meeting may take place in September.

According to Bloomberg, Washington postponed the meeting due to a disagreement over the proposed wording of a joint statement, which said that the Sudanese Armed Forces (SAF) and the Rapid Support Forces (RSF) should not play a dominant role in a post-war transitional government.

Divisions Persist on Power-Sharing

To unlock Sudan’s mineral wealth, the SAF, led by Abdel-Fattah al-Burhan’s Sovereignty Council, and the RSF, under Mohamed Hamdan “Hemedti” Dagalo, must agree on power-sharing. The Manama Agreement, signed in January, outlined steps to end the conflict and govern Sudan, but divisions have since deepened.

In May, Burhan appointed Kamel Idriss as prime minister to form what the SAF leader described as the “Cabinet of Hope.” On July 26, the RSF responded by establishing a “presidential council” led by Dagalo, with Abdel Aziz al-Hilu, head of the Sudan People’s Liberation Movement-North (SPLM-N) — one of Sudan’s largest and most organized rebel groups — as deputy. This council named its coalition the Sudan Founding Alliance (TASIS) and its government the Transitional Peace Government.

TASIS, Arabic for “founding,” presents itself as secular, contrasting with the SAF’s “Cabinet of Hope,” which TASIS labels Islamist due to its alignment with the Sudanese Islamic Movement and two rival Muslim Brotherhood factions. The formation of parallel governments thus signals mounting discord, with each faction creating competing bureaucracies, potentially solidifying temporary battle lines into permanent borders.

Violence Continues Throughout Sudan

The international community often blames Sudan’s woes on competing warlords. The U.S. government has accused both SAF and RSF of war crimes. SAF used chemical weapons on the Sudanese, and RSF engaged in ethnic cleansing that the State Department determined constituted genocide.

In March, leveraging its superior firepower, the SAF recaptured Khartoum but has struggled to stabilize or govern the capital. The SAF called on the displaced Sudanese to return from countries like Egypt, but such a call has faced widespread skepticism.

Even in SAF-controlled areas cleared of RSF forces, bloodshed persists, driven by smaller factions, vigilantes, and radical Islamist militias.

In Khartoum, Islamist brigades target non-religious groups and individuals, vowing to block them from entering the city, according to activist Sabah al-Hasan. She questioned why the Islamists do not focus on stopping looters and murderers instead of using their muscle to fuel political divisions.

Sudan’s economic crisis compounds its instability. The national currency has plummeted to approximately 3,345 Sudanese pounds (SDG) per U.S. dollar, down from 560 SDG before the war began.

Future Peace Plan Must Satisfy Diverse Claims

When Washington eventually brings together the sponsors of Sudan’s warring factions, a comprehensive peace plan must address the competing interests of local, regional, and international actors.

By safeguarding each party’s stake in the country’s mineral wealth, Washington can shift Sudan’s focus to curbing radical ideologies, such as the resurgence of Islamism in parts of the country.

Sudan’s conflict appears intractable, but the root issue is global disinterest, particularly from Washington. When the world’s leading power remains passive, regional rivals encourage their proxies to escalate violence, fueling atrocities and famine. However, when the United States takes decisive action and applies pressure, regional and local actors are more likely to align and pursue peace.

Delaying the Sudan Quad’s meeting in Washington was a mistake and should be rescheduled as soon as possible.

Hussain Abdul-Hussain is a research fellow at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies (FDD). For more analysis from the author and FDD, please subscribe HERE. Follow Hussain on X @hahussain. Follow FDD on X @FDD. FDD is a Washington, DC-based, nonpartisan research institute focusing on foreign policy and national security.