US President Donald Trump's statement following his meeting with Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman in Washington DC a few days ago revived a question that had seemed forgotten for several months. Can the Sudanese war be ended? Does Trump truly have the ability to push the warring parties to cease fighting even though all mediation efforts have failed?
Although Trump's remarks were delivered in his usual showman-like tone, when he confidently stated that he began "working on the Sudan file 30 minutes after the Crown Prince's request," his public intervention did not go unnoticed, especially in light of the recent developments on the ground and the fall of major cities like El Fasher to the Rapid Support Forces. These developments were accompanied by brutal massacres that have brought Sudan back to the forefront of international attention.
Will Trump’s intervention make a difference?
Previous US efforts were not absent. The "International Quartet," led by the US along with Saudi Arabia, the UAE, and Egypt, has proposed a three-month ceasefire plan, to be followed by a political process. However, the plan was met with immediate resistance from the Port Sudan government, which rejected the ceasefire and refused entry to the fact-finding mission, while simultaneously accepting its establishment.The Port Sudan government, recognised by the UN, is a caretaker government appointed to manage affairs until a new government is formed. This caretaker government was recently announced by Sudanese army chief Abdel Fattah al-Burhan.
The result was the continuation of the war, the expansion of crimes and violations, and the international community's inability to effect any real change in the course of the crisis. However, Trump's intervention today appears different in two respects: first, it comes at the direct request of Saudi Arabia, an Arab ally capable of influencing the warring parties; and second, Washington is in dire need of a swift foreign policy achievement to restore its diplomatic presence, which has been eroded by the wars in Gaza and Ukraine.
Nevertheless, the complexity of the Sudanese situation is too profound to be resolved by a statement or a quick initiative, as the two warring parties—the army and the Rapid Support Forces—are not isolated from a larger regional network. The army relies on support from regional actors to varying degrees, while the Rapid Support Forces depend on other ongoing regional support.
This situation presents Trump with a clear dilemma: his own allies are on opposing sides of the conflict. Without a genuine ability to unify the positions of the key regional players, no mediator, regardless of their influence or willingness, will be able to impose a ceasefire.
Furthermore, the internal situation in Sudan presents a significant obstacle to any swift settlement. The Port Sudan government rejects the truce despite its public welcome of the Saudi-American mediation, and the Rapid Support Forces refuse to withdraw after their recent territorial gains. Moreover, civilian institutions are virtually collapsed, and the country is facing the worst humanitarian crisis in its modern history, with over 12 million displaced persons.
The reality is that any ceasefire, even one imposed by force, will require a massive administrative and humanitarian apparatus, which currently does not exist, and a neutral authority to ensure the continuity of essential services.
However, Trump's chances of imposing a ceasefire are not nonexistent. Influence from supporting regional actors, if exerted clearly, could push the military toward accepting a truce, and genuine American pressure on the other regional actors could curb the arming of the Rapid Support Forces.
Photo: Port Sudan is the home to Sudan's government while the civil war is raging. (Steve King for Unsplash)