From Crisis Management to the Pursuit of a Strategic Exit

This ongoing series of articles is not merely an attempt to analyze the war in Sudan through the lens of daily developments or immediate reactions. Rather, it seeks to uncover the maneuvers occurring behind international and regional scenes, exploring how and why the global approach to this conflict has shifted—and what this evolution means for the state and the future of Sudan.

Across these three installments, we track the transition of the Sudanese file from the narrow scope of "crisis management" to the pursuit of a "strategic exit." We dissect the roles of key international actors, such as the United States, Saudi Arabia, and Turkey—not as neutral mediators, but as powers actively realigning their priorities based on regional security calculations and grand strategic interests.

This is a sequential analysis where each installment builds upon the last, gradually revealing how Sudan has emerged as a central pivot in the geopolitical balance of the Red Sea and the Horn of Africa. It explores the critical shift in global dynamics, illustrating why the world can no longer afford to ignore the unfolding crisis.

 Following the failed RSF coup attempt to seize power—which received political backing from certain leaders within the FFC coalition and was bolstered by regional military and financial support—Sudan descended into a full-scale war in April 2023. Initially, the international community framed the conflict as a localized military-political crisis, believing it could be contained through standard condemnations, generic ceasefire appeals, and the dispatch of urgent humanitarian aid.

 This pattern of engagement is nothing new. The international order is accustomed to managing crises in fragile states through mitigation and containment, rather than tackling the underlying drivers of conflict.

 However, the protracted nature of the war, its expanding geographic footprint, and its evolution into one of the world’s most dire humanitarian catastrophes have forced a gradual shift in the international perspective on Sudan.

The conflict is no longer viewed as a mere internal struggle between local factions; rather, it has become a direct threat to regional stability across the Red Sea and the Horn of Africa. It has fueled arms and narcotics smuggling and flung the doors wide open for human trafficking and irregular migration toward Europe.

This pivot in global perception explains the changing diplomatic rhetoric, the realignment of priorities, and the rise of regional actors that previously operated primarily behind the scenes.

Why has the international stance shifted?

 The drivers of this international shift can be distilled into three primary, interconnected factors:

1- A Protracted War with No End in Sight

 Defying the initial projections of many Western capitals, the war in Sudan proved to be neither short-lived nor susceptible to a swift resolution—particularly following the Rapid Support Forces’ (RSF) failure to seize power or achieve a decisive military breakthrough.

Furthermore, all attempts at temporary ceasefires collapsed, largely due to the RSF’s lack of commitment—most notably regarding the Jeddah Declaration signed in May 2023 under U.S.-Saudi mediation. That agreement explicitly mandated the RSF’s withdrawal from civilian infrastructure, hospitals, and private residences that had been repurposed into military outposts.

This state of perpetual attrition has cultivated a climate of 'strategic uncertainty,' representing the worst-case scenario for international policymakers.

2- The Worsening Humanitarian Catastrophe

Over time, the humanitarian crisis has escalated far beyond the threshold of a conventional emergency, edging toward the brink of genocide, systematic looting, and the deliberate impoverishment of civilians, compounded by famine and total societal collapse.

With thousands dead and millions displaced both internally and across borders, entire cities have been reduced to rubble, and healthcare and education systems have faced a near-total collapse. This staggering human cost is no longer ignorable—neither morally nor politically—particularly as the specter of mass migration waves looms over European shores.

3- Threatening International Strategic Interests

 Sudan is far from a peripheral player in geopolitical calculations. Its strategic position on the Red Sea and the Horn of Africa, its proximity to the Bab el-Mandeb Strait, and its shared borders with seven nations make it a critical variable in the international security equation. Consequently, any prolonged security breakdown would inevitably lead to:

• Threats to international maritime navigation.
• The proliferation of illicit networks for arms, narcotics, and human trafficking.
• A security vacuum exploitable by extremist groups or rival global powers.

Collectively, these factors have compelled major powers to realize that the policy of 'conflict management' is no longer tenable; what is now required is a 'strategic exit' to avert a total collapse.

The U.S. Stance

 The United States has emerged as the most prominent actor on the international stage regarding the Sudanese crisis, particularly through the Jeddah process, which it co-sponsored alongside Saudi Arabia. However, the stalling of this diplomatic track has exposed the limitations of American leverage in imposing solutions upon a conflict defined by its profound complexity and deeply intertwined interests.

The American position can be distilled into the following key points:

1.     Aversion to "Failed State" Scenarios: Scarred by costly legacies in Libya and Somalia, Washington is determined to prevent the emergence of another failed state in Africa.

2.    Containment of Rival Influence: There is deep-seated concern regarding the expansion of rival global powers into a burgeoning strategic vacuum.

3.    The Diminishing Returns of Delay: Washington recognizes that a protracted conflict will render any future political settlement exponentially more complex and costly to implement.

Consequently, the United States has begun to pivot from the role of a direct manager to that of a coordinator and delegator, granting greater latitude to its regional allies—led by Saudi Arabia and Egypt—who possess tangible influence over the course of events.

This delegation does not signify an American withdrawal; rather, it represents a strategic redistribution of roles. Regional powers are expected to shoulder the burden of direct pressure, while Washington retains its position as the political guarantor and international backer.

Sudan in the New Regional Calculations

 As a result of this shift, Sudan is no longer viewed as a peripheral issue, but rather as a litmus test for the region's capacity to manage its own crises. This explains the ascendancy of neighboring states, the mounting rhetoric surrounding 'red lines,' and the staunch rejection of any scenarios involving the partition or dismantling of Sudanese state institutions.

The implicit international message has become increasingly clear, summarized in the following pillars:

• No legitimacy for a reality imposed by force.
• No recognition of parallel entities.
• Zero tolerance for the dismantling of the Sudanese state.

What Does This Mean for Sudan in Practical Terms?

 On the ground, this shift entails several direct and indirect consequences, including:

1.     Diminished Prospects for Recognition: There is a significant reduction in the likelihood of international recognition for any political or administrative arrangements established outside the formal state framework.

2.    Escalating Pressure over Violations: A noticeable surge in political and media pressure is being directed at parties accused of widespread atrocities, specifically the Rapid Support Forces (RSF).

3.    The Securitization of Aid: Humanitarian assistance is increasingly being conditioned upon the establishment of safe corridors, security guarantees, and political understandings, rather than being left vulnerable to the prevailing chaos

Potential Scenarios

In light of current shifts, three primary scenarios can be envisioned:

• First: Long-term Containment: This scenario entails an expanded humanitarian truce but falls short of a fundamental or root resolution to the crisis.
• Second: Coordinated Pressure: This involves unifying international and regional stances to actively propel a genuine and substantive political track.
• Third: Persistent Instability: This scenario assumes the failure of diplomatic efforts, leading to Sudan’s transformation into a chronic and protracted crisis.

Conclusion: Current indicators suggest that the second scenario is gaining the most traction. However, its success remains strictly contingent upon the ability of international actors to address the root causes of the Sudanese crisis—causes deeply rooted in regional and international interference in Sudan's internal affairs, both before and after the fall of the Bashir regime.

Key Conclusion

Recent international realignments regarding the war in Sudan do not inherently signal an imminent resolution. Instead, they underscore a critical reality: the world—and specifically regional powers such as Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Turkey, and Qatar—is no longer willing to stand by and witness the catastrophic collapse of the Sudanese state. For these actors, the disintegration of Sudan carries stakes that are far too high to ignore.

The transition of the Sudanese file from the periphery of global concern to the core of regional and international strategic calculations represents a historic opportunity; however, it remains far from a guarantee. Ultimately, true transformation must originate from within, leveraged through a precise reading of these shifting variables rather than a passive reliance on miracles.

You may also like:

RSF’ Crimes Against Civilians in Sudan

From Rebellion to Genocide: The Full Story of What Is Happening in Sudan

Sudan: A War Without Borders... Heartbreaking Stories from the Heart of Hell

War in Sudan: Wounds of a Nation and a Call for Reform

______________________________

Read the article in Arabic