America’s Policy: A Triad, or Perhaps a Quartet!

As I See 

By Adel Al-Baz

1
In any political analysis, one must examine the context in which events occur and their chronological sequence, in order to understand, dissect, and uncover the objectives pursued by the key actors involved. Within this framework, we attempt to interpret the recent statement issued by the U.S. State Department regarding the war in Sudan—a statement that exposes a “triad” of interests, double standards, and complicity, all cloaked as a moral, humanitarian peace project, while in reality serving as a tool to advance interests, manage influence, and consolidate alliances.

2
No sooner had Trump returned laden with trillion-dollar commitments from the UAE than the agenda of secret deals—particularly concerning Sudan—began to unfold. Just as Mr. Trump seeks to reap Emirati dollars, there is an Emirati agenda that must be pushed through Washington for those trillions to be deemed “legitimate,” “halal,” and payable.

3
Less than a week after Trump’s return, the fabricated “chemical weapons” lie emerged—alleging that the Sudanese army used them against the rebels. That was immediately followed by an announcement that sanctions would be imposed in June on army leaders based on that lie. Then, the U.S. State Department summoned three regional ambassadors—those of Egypt, the UAE, and Saudi Arabia—to meet with Deputy Secretary of State Christopher Landau and Senior Advisor for African Affairs, Masad Boulos.

At this point, the game became open. The UAE does not give or buy American weapons for charity. There are conditions that the U.S. must meet—especially if these relate to a country that means nothing to America and can be easily condemned, sanctioned, or even bombed.

4
The UAE’s requirements revolve around being rescued from the historic quagmire it willingly stepped into—a quagmire soaked in Sudanese blood due to its funding and support of a criminal militia. Hence, Mr. Christopher urgently summoned the three ambassadors: Reema bint Bandar Al Saud of Saudi Arabia, Moataz Zahran of Egypt, and the Emirati ambassador. Then the State Department issued a statement calling for an immediate cessation of hostilities in Sudan—not in Gaza or Ukraine!

While the United States rushes to condemn and sanction Sudan, it defends Israel as it commits every war crime imaginable, supplying it with weapons and full political backing to continue its genocide in Gaza.

5
But why is the U.S. specifically demanding an end to the war in Sudan? The statement says:

“Recognizing that the conflict in Sudan threatens shared regional interests and has caused a major humanitarian crisis.”

And the second reason:

“The United States does not believe this conflict has a military solution.”

Accordingly:

 “The Quad must make a joint effort to convince the warring parties to cease hostilities and reach a negotiated solution.”

To cover the real reasons behind this urgent intervention, the statement adds:

“Given the growing regional impact of the Sudanese crisis, the Deputy Secretary affirmed the U.S. commitment to closely collaborate with the Quad countries to address this crisis.”

And what comes next?

 “Christopher discussed with them the next steps to achieve this goal”—namely, ending the war!

This is the kind of statement that makes you laugh and walk away, never wanting to return. It’s drenched in falsehoods and nauseating in every paragraph.

6
Consider this line:

“The conflict in Sudan threatens shared regional interests.”

What “shared interests” are being threatened by a war in Kordofan’s plains or the remote corners of Darfur? Do the U.S., Egypt, Saudi Arabia, or the UAE even have common interests in those areas? Do they have shared interests in Sudan at all? And what of the Red Sea—are Sudan’s actions a threat there, or is it the war in Yemen? What did America do to protect Red Sea interests during Yemen’s war? And what about the Emirati military bases and ports along the Red Sea that genuinely threaten regional security?

The vague talk of “shared interests” masks an Emirati desire—enabled by American complicity—to dominate Sudan’s ports and coastline and secure access to gold and natural resources, even if it requires proxy wars.

7
But even if we accept that “shared interests” do exist, why did America suddenly realize, after over two years of war, that Sudan’s conflict threatens them? Why now?

After the UAE pledged to invest $1.3 trillion in America? After the Rapid Support Forces (RSF) were defeated in five states and the army is advancing to liberate the rest?

Only now, at this precise moment, does the war become an existential threat to regional interests?

Oh, you lying hypocrites—who do you think believes you?

8
With stunning audacity, the statement laments that the war has created a “major humanitarian crisis”—this while the same Christopher-led administration decided just two months ago to cut USAID humanitarian assistance to Sudan, worsening the crisis!

How can the U.S. speak of a humanitarian emergency while actively denying aid to Sudan? Give us a break!

9
The statement abruptly jumps to this conclusion:

 “This conflict cannot be resolved militarily.”

Since when did you figure that out? Before or after the RSF’s defeat?

When the militia was sprawling across the country, you remained silent, letting them complete their plan to conquer Sudan militarily. But now that they’re losing, suddenly “there’s no military solution”!

While the army is achieving decisive gains, you declare it’s time for negotiations?

And what is this so-called “solution”?

 “A cessation of hostilities and a negotiated settlement.”Please! Haven’t we seen this script before?

Didn’t the U.S. call for a negotiated solution in the third week of the war? The army agreed and signed the Jeddah Agreement.

What happened next? The militia failed to honor the agreement, despite international and Quad sponsorship.

They weren’t punished or held accountable—in fact, the U.S. kept pampering them and the UK shielded them in the Security Council.

So why push now for another “negotiated solution” as though the first never happened? How can we trust this second attempt while the first remains unimplemented?

A new negotiated deal without enforcing the previous one would simply return the militia to the political and military arena—for free. That’s absurd. And it’s not going to happen.

10
At the end of the statement comes a vague but significant phrase:

 “Christopher discussed with the ambassadors the next steps to achieve this goal.”What are these next steps?

What are they hiding? Where are they headed?

These “next steps” are likely still under discussion, or yet to be finalized. But they may include:

– Using other countries as pressure tools
– Leveraging international organizations and the UN Security Council
– Political escalation with further sanctions
– Potential military escalation, including targeted strikes on key figures and sites

All of this may be aimed at paving the way for a regional—or even international—conference, launching a new negotiation process where the UAE—funders of war and mercenaries—sit at the same table as the victims!

Their goal: to force through an agreement achieving what the UAE and its militias failed to gain through war.

But not a chance! Why?

Because this time, the negotiator is not the army, not the government—it’s the people.

And no one can speak on their behalf or sign in their name.

The people know exactly what they want:

The militia, its funders, and its allies… out of the political and military picture.

Anything else? Forget it. Let America, its agents, and its allies board their grandest warships to invade us—because we have nothing left to lose.

They have destroyed our country. All we have left is our dignity—

And we will never compromise it, as we fight our final battle under its banner.