No images? Click here
Sudanese army soldiers sit atop a tank in the Red Sea city of Port Sudan on April 20, 2023. (AFP via Getty Images)
The civil conflict between the Sudanese Armed Forces (SAF) and the Rapid Support Forces (RSF) has left the United States with a menu of choices ranging from bad to terrible.
Read Hudson Senior Fellow Josh Meservey's latest Hudson policy memo, which explains that Washington can defend against the worst outcomes and even salvage some benefits if it identifies clear goals and acts decisively to achieve them.
Key Insights
1. America has several interests in Sudan.
The most serious threat is Russia, which has tried for years to gain a base in Port Sudan. Second, the US does not want Islamists, who dominated Sudan during the time of Omar al-Bashir, to return to power. Third, the US wishes to prevent a region-threatening meltdown with the attendant humanitarian disaster. Fourth, Washington wants to help a civilian-led, democratic government in Sudan take power, as it would be a more natural American partner than yet another authoritarian system of the kind that has caused the US so many problems in the past.
2. Indirectly supporting SAF leader General Abdel Fattah al-Burhan is the most palatable option for US interests.
Given that the conflict appears to be developing into a long stalemate, that there is no realistic prospect for a negotiated settlement, and that the longer the fighting continues the worse it will be for the people of Sudan and for the US, the least bad plausible outcome for American interests would be for the SAF to prevail. The RSF and the SAF, and their respective leaders, are both unpalatable, but the latter is less so than the former. While Burhan has links to Russia, they are not as strong as RSF leader Lieutenant General Mohamed Hamdan Dagalo’s.
3. Competent American leadership could drive a wedge between Russia and Egypt and draw countries like Israel, Saudi Arabia, and the United Arab Emirates closer to each other and to Washington.
Direct Egyptian and indirect American support, in combination with potential assistance from other countries, would likely be enough to help the SAF degrade the RSF and expel it from most of the population centers. Having stability in some of Sudan is preferable to instability everywhere, and Washington should prefer to have significant influence with the government in charge of those stable areas, rather than having little influence in a country engulfed in chaos. Additionally, the Sudan crisis could drive a wedge between Russia and Egypt if they take up opposite causes.
Quotes may be edited for clarity and length.
Go Deeper
|
The Geopolitics of US Engagement in Sudan An ongoing civil war in Sudan would disrupt the regional economy, turn the country into a haven for terrorists, and give Russia and China the chance to increase their influence in Africa. In Foreign Policy, Center for Peace and Security in the Middle East Program Manager Zineb Riboua explains how the US can work with Israel and Saudi Arabia to restore order. |
|
Understanding the “Unknown Gunmen” Who Attacked a US Convoy in Nigeria Nigeria is volatile but quite strategically significant, and America cannot afford to further restrict its diplomatic presence in response to what was likely random violence rather than a targeted strike, explains Hudson Research Fellow James Barnett in a new policy memo. |
|
The Wagner Group profits off of Sudanese gold, directly funding Russia’s war in Ukraine. Hudson Senior Fellow Joshua Meservey explains the geopolitical importance of Sudan and other important African issues on Foreign Podicy. |
