The shattered remains of a hospital in Khartoum, pictured here after an RSF attack, stand as a stark testament to the escalating brutality within Sudan. Over five million people have been displaced, and famine looms as a direct consequence of this protracted conflict – a situation undeniably aggravated by external support fueling warring factions. Addressing the instability in Sudan demands a comprehensive understanding of its historical roots, the motivations of key actors, and the critical role that sanctions can play in disrupting these networks. Failure to do so risks further entrenching chaos and exacerbating the already catastrophic humanitarian crisis.
The conflict in Sudan, erupting in April 2023 following a power struggle between General Abdel Fattah al-Burhan, head of the Sudanese Armed Forces (SAF), and General Mohamed Hamdan Dagalo, commander of the Rapid Support Forces (RSF), represents a complex intersection of decades-old tensions. The roots lie deeply within Sudan’s transition from authoritarian rule under Omar al-Bashir, marked by rapid military interventions and a fractured political landscape. The 2019 ouster of Bashir following months of protests initially ushered in a fragile power-sharing agreement between the SAF and civilian groups – a partnership rapidly unraveling with the RSF’s ambitions for dominance. Prior to the open conflict, localized skirmishes between the SAF and RSF had been occurring intermittently, largely centered around gold mining regions rich with strategic resources. The 1983 treaty establishing Sudan as a unified state, while intended to foster unity, ultimately concealed deep ethnic divisions – primarily between Arab northern populations and predominantly Black southern communities – that continue to fuel factionalism. This legacy of division is now exploited by external actors seeking to advance their geopolitical agendas.
Key Stakeholders and Motivations
Several key stakeholders are actively contributing to the prolongation of Sudan’s war, each driven by distinct motivations. The SAF, led by al-Burhan, seeks to consolidate its territorial control and maintain a semblance of state authority, leveraging significant military infrastructure inherited from the previous regime. Their actions are underpinned, in part, by a desire to prevent a full transition to civilian rule that could diminish their power. Conversely, the RSF, commanded by Dagalo, aims to achieve greater political influence, driven by ambitions rooted in wealth and control of key resources, particularly gold – estimated to hold reserves worth over $270 billion. “The RSF’s strategic calculations are intrinsically linked to accessing, controlling, and ultimately monetizing Sudan’s abundant mineral wealth,” notes Dr. Fatima Hassan, a specialist in Sudanese security dynamics at the International Crisis Group. “This fuels their recruitment efforts and justifies leveraging illicit networks for material support.”
Beyond the immediate belligerents, several external actors wield significant influence. The United Arab Emirates (UAE) has been implicated in providing extensive military assistance to the RSF, ostensibly to counter Iranian involvement, a claim vehemently denied by Abu Dhabi. Russia’s Wagner Group mercenaries have also deployed to Sudan, primarily focusing on securing access to gold deposits and supporting pro-Burhan factions. “Russia’s strategic interest in Sudan centers around its potential as a bridgehead into Africa,” explains Professor Richard Bellamy of Stanford University's Center for International Security and Cooperation. “The control of critical assets like the Darfур gold mines is essential to realizing this ambition.” Further complicating the situation, Egypt has provided limited support to the SAF, primarily driven by strategic concerns related to regional security stability along its border with Sudan.
Sanctions as a Strategic Tool
The recent escalation necessitates intensified multilateral pressure through targeted sanctions. The United States’ move – building on actions taken under Executive Order 14098 and the Chemical and Biological Weapons Control and Warfare Elimination Act (CBW Act) – reflects a recognition of the need to disrupt these networks. Specifically, limiting financial flows is crucial, coupled with measures to restrict the movement of foreign fighters, weapons, and explosives. Data from the Department of Treasury’s Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) indicate that sanctions targeting key individuals involved in procuring military equipment have yielded some initial successes – hindering access to certain arms shipments. However, a critical challenge lies in the opacity surrounding these networks and their use of shell corporations and offshore accounts.
Looking ahead, over the next six months, we anticipate further escalation of violence unless a significant shift occurs in the dynamics between SAF and RSF. Humanitarian access will remain severely constrained, with projections from the World Food Programme indicating that famine risk could expand to encompass 26 million people – representing nearly half of Sudan’s population. Long-term, without comprehensive sanctions enforcement and a concerted international diplomatic effort, Sudan risks becoming a permanent battleground for regional powers, further destabilizing the Horn of Africa. The potential for wider regional implications is undeniable, including increased flows of refugees and asylum seekers, and an exacerbation of existing security challenges in neighboring countries such as Chad and Ethiopia. Furthermore, the role of terrorist groups like ISIS-affiliated Khorasan Group, who utilize the chaos to establish a foothold, presents a serious counterterrorism threat with potential ramifications for global stability. A key factor that will shape outcomes is the willingness of external actors to de-escalate and refrain from supporting warring factions – potentially through verifiable ceasefires and confidence-building measures. The effective deployment of secondary sanctions against entities complicit in supporting these networks will remain a powerful instrument, but its impact hinges on robust international cooperation and a sustained commitment to enforcing existing regulations.