Sudan Between Washington and Abu Dhabi: Renewed Dialogue and the Dilemma of Alliances
Sudan Events – Agencies
The Sudanese war witnessed a notable development in August with a secret meeting in Zurich between General Abdel Fattah al-Burhan, Chairman of the Sovereign Council, and Donald Trump’s senior adviser for African affairs, Paulos. Lasting three hours, the encounter was more than a communication channel—it was a test of Washington’s conditions and Khartoum’s readiness to engage in a diplomatic settlement, at a time when the UAE’s controversial role looms ever larger.
Islamists: Washington’s and Burhan’s Stumbling Block
Among the key issues raised by the U.S. administration was the presence of Islamists linked to former president Omar al-Bashir. Washington regards their return—whether through the military or militias—as a dual threat: first, to the possibility of a democratic civilian transition, long a stated American objective; and second, to its counterterrorism efforts. Paulos pressed Burhan to sideline senior officers tied to the old regime. Within a week, Port Sudan dismissed dozens of officers, a move seen as a direct response to U.S. pressure.
The deeper dilemma lies in Islamist militias, foremost the al-Baraa ibn Malik group, which played a pivotal role in the government’s counteroffensive earlier this year. Western observers view its young commander, Musbah Abu Zeid Talha, as a symbol of Islamists’ reemergence through informal channels. Despite his brief detention in Cairo, mediation by Port Sudan secured his release, highlighting the enduring influence of these networks.
The Integration Project and Unified Forces
Burhan’s pledge to integrate Darfur’s allied armed groups—those led by Minni Minnawi and Jibril Ibrahim—into the national army is both an attempt to restructure the military on a centralized basis and a reassurance to the West that he controls the battlefield and is curbing “unruly” actors. Yet, the project still lacks a timeline and clear mechanisms, making it appear more like a political commitment than an actionable plan.
Washington’s Stick and Carrot
The Trump administration signaled readiness to reopen the file on security cooperation and counterterrorism with Sudan, and even to review some sanctions on Burhan, including those tied to chemical weapons use. This “carrot” is balanced by the “stick” of war crimes and democratic transition files, which Washington continues to hold over Khartoum. The direction will likely become clearer during the UN General Assembly in New York, where Burhan and civilian Prime Minister Kamel al-Tayeb Idris are set to attend.
The UAE Predicament and U.S. Ambivalence
The thorniest issue remains the Rapid Support Forces (RSF), led by Mohamed Hamdan Dagalo (Hemedti). Backed discreetly by the UAE, the RSF is, for Washington, an indispensable actor in any settlement. Yet the Trump administration prefers to keep its dealings with Abu Dhabi off the record, while the UAE denies any involvement in supporting the RSF or the war.
Tensions between the partners surfaced publicly in late July, when Washington abruptly canceled a “Sudan Quartet” meeting (the U.S., Saudi Arabia, Egypt, and the UAE) over disagreements with Abu Dhabi about the wording of a joint statement. The incident exposed the rift between Washington’s approach—favoring containment of both the army and RSF—and Abu Dhabi’s direct support for one side, with all the consequences that entails for the battlefield and the fate of al-Fashir and Darfur.
Between Dialogue and Escalation
In the end, the resumption of U.S.-Sudan dialogue reflects Washington’s desire to regain a grip on the Sudanese conflict after a period of retreat and distraction. Yet it simultaneously places Burhan in a difficult test: sidelining Islamists and integrating armed groups may earn him international legitimacy but could weaken his domestic base and sow divisions within the army.
For the UAE, the situation is increasingly awkward. Its undeclared backing of Hemedti is now an obstacle to alignment with Washington, even as the latter pushes for a new diplomatic track.
Sudan thus stands at a crossroads: between U.S. pressure to impose conditions and Abu Dhabi’s role in fueling the war and complicating any settlement. The result is that each new round of diplomacy hinges on whether the parties can overcome these dilemmas, while the war continues to drain both Sudanese society and the state.
