Sudan’s Burhan Agrees to Peace Talks, His Hardline Stance Threatens Stalemate

After months of rejecting peace talks with his rivals and insisting that only his victory would end Sudan’s civil war, Sudanese Armed Forces (SAF) Commander Abdul-Fattah al-Burhan succumbed to international pressure and agreed to negotiate. However, his rigid conditions signal a likely stalemate.

As the war has grinded on, Burhan’s closest regional allies have grown increasingly anxious about the resurgence of radical Islamism, fueled by the return of elements from the former regime. Egypt, leveraging its influence over the Sudanese general, persuaded him that resisting an international roadmap — drafted by a Quad comprising the United States, Egypt, the United Arab Emirates (UAE), and Saudi Arabia — was undermining his position and casting him as the sole obstacle to peace.

While Burhan and his SAF deliberated, Washington voiced growing frustration with the army’s ties to Islamist militias and the Islamic Republic of Iran. “Our primary concern with the Sudanese Army has been its connections to radical Islamists and its importation of arms from Iran,” said Massad Boulos, President Trump’s envoy to Africa. “The army has taken steps to sever ties with radical elements from the previous regime,” he added.

Boulos correctly highlighted the SAF’s links to Sudanese Islamists and Iran, but was mistaken in claiming the army had fully cut these ties. Gibril Ibrahim, an Islamist holdover from the previous regime and Finance Minister in the SAF-backed government in Khartoum, visited Tehran a year ago. On September 12, the U.S. Treasury Department imposed sanctions on him. This month, he led SAF’s delegation to Moscow.

Burhan relies on Islamists to bolster his position. Lacking popular support and the manpower needed to confront his former allies-turned-rivals, the Rapid Support Forces (RSF), the Sudanese general has sought to balance his domestic dependence on Islamists with the need for support from his anti-Islamist foreign allies, Egypt and Saudi Arabia.

To appease them, Burhan issued a decree asserting that no Islamist militia could operate independently and that all militias were under the strict command of the military. However, this decree did little to alter the status quo in Sudan or assuage the concerns of his regional allies.

Alarmed by the surge in Islamism, the Quad intensified pressure on Burhan to negotiate a peaceful resolution to the war. The Sudanese general and his Islamist allies resisted, denouncing the Quad’s roadmap as “foreign intervention” and imperialism.

The primary reason the SAF and Islamists rejected a peaceful settlement was that, according to leaks, the Quad’s roadmap stipulates that neither the SAF nor the RSF would play a role in Sudan’s transitional or post-war governance.

Yet under mounting pressure, Burhan relented and agreed to talks. Representatives of the SAF and RSF held indirect negotiations in Washington on Thursday and Friday, with the Quad indicating it might convene further discussions in the U.S. capital by the end of the month. The SAF denied that it participated in the talks, but also said that its government’s foreign minister will visit Washington next week, upon invitation from the State Department.

Despite agreeing to talks, Burhan is unlikely to relinquish power under any circumstances. The general views himself as the sole legitimate authority in Sudan, asserting his exclusive right to oversee both the post-war transitional process and the government it produces, as he made clear in a public appearance. The general further insisted that any settlement must result in the dissolution of the RSF, which he refers to as a militia, and the consolidation of SAF control.

Burhan’s statements suggest he aims to achieve through negotiations what he has failed to secure through warfare. This hardline stance virtually guarantees the failure of the Quad’s efforts and the continuation of the conflict.

Conceding on minor issues while remaining inflexible on critical points has become a common tactic among warring Middle Eastern factions, particularly hardliners who refuse to compromise despite the devastating toll of conflict.

In Gaza, for example, Hamas rejected Israeli demands that could have ended the war on its first day, prolonging the fighting for two years. However, when President Trump rallied global support behind his 20-point peace plan, Hamas found itself isolated and was forced to make concessions. It divided the plan into a First Phase, involving a ceasefire and an exchange of Israeli hostages for Palestinian prisoners, while deferring the most critical issue: the disarmament and dissolution of Hamas. This allowed Hamas to ease global pressure without addressing the underlying triggers that could reignite conflict at any moment.

Similarly, Burhan is attempting to alleviate the Quad’s pressure by agreeing to talks while preemptively rejecting the core requirements of a peaceful settlement, thereby dodging international scrutiny without halting the war, much to the detriment the Sudanese people.

Hussain Abdul-Hussain is a research fellow at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies (FDD). For more analysis from Hussain 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 national security and foreign policy.