The current crisis in Sudan, dominated by clashes between the Sudanese Armed Forces (SAF) and the Rapid Support Forces (RSF), is not a spontaneous event. It’s the culmination of years of unresolved power struggles, exacerbated by external interventions. The 2019 revolution that ousted Omar al-Bashir created a power vacuum, and the ensuing transition period was marked by competing factions vying for control, particularly between the military and civilian groups. Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates (UAE), pursuing a strategy they termed “Project Falcon,” intervened in 2017, backing the RSF led by General Mohamed Hamdan Dagalo (known as Hemedti) with billions of dollars in investment and military support, ostensibly to stabilize the country and combat terrorism. This support was intended to counter what they perceived as Iranian influence in the region – a strategic calculation deeply embedded in the broader context of the Yemen war.
Historical Roots of Intervention
The genesis of this current crisis can be traced back to the Darfur conflict in the early 2000s, where RSF’s origins lie. The group’s initial formation as a Janjaweed militia, implicated in widespread human rights abuses, was largely facilitated – and subsequently supported – by UAE and Saudi funding. This funding evolved over time, shifting from primarily providing operational support to bolstering the RSF’s infrastructure and political ambitions. The 2018 Jeddah Agreement, brokered by the UAE, aimed to integrate the RSF into the SAF, a key step in the transition process. However, this agreement failed to address fundamental power-sharing disagreements, and Hemedti increasingly leveraged his control over vital resources – particularly gold – to consolidate his power and resist the integration process.
“The strategic calculations involved here are deeply rooted in a zero-sum geopolitical worldview,” explains Dr. Fatima Hassan, a specialist in regional security at the Chatham House, in a recent interview. “The intervention in Sudan was fundamentally about projecting Saudi Arabia’s influence in the Horn of Africa, countering what they view as Iranian ambition, and securing access to strategic resources.”
Key Stakeholders and Motives
Several key stakeholders are involved, each with distinct motivations. The SAF, led by General Abdel Fattah al-Burhan, seeks to maintain a strong, centralized military and resist the growing influence of the RSF. The RSF, under Hemedti, aspires to greater political power and control over Sudan’s vast resources. Saudi Arabia and the UAE continue to exert significant influence, driven by regional security concerns and economic interests. The United States, while officially advocating for a ceasefire and civilian-led transition, has been hampered by its continued engagement with the UAE and Saudi Arabia in other critical partnerships, creating a diplomatic friction. Russia’s Wagner Group has also gained a foothold in Sudan, offering security services to both sides, further complicating the situation.
Data from the International Crisis Group reveals a complex web of alliances and rivalries. “The involvement of external actors has dramatically exacerbated the underlying tensions within Sudan,” states analyst Mark Davis. “The flow of weapons and financial resources has fueled the conflict and made a peaceful resolution increasingly difficult.” Figures from the ICG estimate that over $1.5 billion in foreign military aid has poured into Sudan since 2017.
Recent Developments & Shifting Dynamics
Over the past six months, the conflict has intensified dramatically. The RSF’s offensive in Darfur, aimed at expanding its territory and exploiting regional instability, has drawn in tribal militias and attracted international condemnation. There have been widespread reports of human rights abuses committed by all parties involved. The UN Integrated Transition Assistance Mission in Sudan (UNITAMS) has struggled to mediate a solution due to the intransigence of the warring factions and the persistent interference of external actors. A significant recent development is the coordinated pressure from the US and UK to halt the RSF’s offensive in Darfur, leveraging sanctions and diplomatic channels.
According to the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute, the number of foreign fighters participating in the conflict has grown significantly, with estimates suggesting over 10,000 individuals from countries including Egypt, Morocco, and Chad actively engaged. This represents a concerning escalation of the conflict’s regional implications.
Future Impacts & Strategic Considerations
Short-term outcomes – within the next six months – likely point to continued intense fighting, a worsening humanitarian crisis, and a protracted stalemate. Long-term, the scenario hinges on the ability of international mediators to forge a credible ceasefire and facilitate a genuine political transition. However, the entrenched interests and external influence complicate this prospect. Without a fundamental shift in the dynamics of the conflict, Sudan risks descending into prolonged civil war, with devastating consequences for its people and regional stability.
“The long-term impact will be a more fragmented and unstable Sudan, potentially serving as a breeding ground for extremism and a source of regional instability,” warns Dr. Hassan. “The strategic calculations driving the intervention have created a deeply flawed and destabilizing situation.”
The situation in Sudan underscores the urgent need for a broader international strategy that prioritizes a negotiated settlement, addresses the underlying causes of the conflict, and mitigates the influence of external actors. It’s a critical, albeit challenging, test of global diplomacy and a stark reminder of the often-unintended consequences of geopolitical maneuvering. The shifting sands of influence in Sudan demand careful observation and, crucially, a commitment to fostering a more sustainable and peaceful future for the nation. Keywords: Sudan, Saudi Arabia, UAE, Regional Stability, Conflict, Intervention, RSF, SAF, Humanitarian Crisis, Geopolitics.