Derailing peace in Sudan by deliberate design

Attempts to secure peace in Sudan and halt the unfolding humanitarian catastrophe have continued for nearly two-and-a-half years of war. Yet a determined belief within the army and those backing it that military victory is still possible has prevailed. The result is unending destruction, displacement, and loss of life, with no end in sight. Every peace effort is obstructed, as though the Sudanese parties are locked in a zero-sum battle that can only conclude with a knockout blow, in a world where such outcomes no longer govern conflicts. With each passing day, the suffering of millions of Sudanese people, whose lives and futures hang in the balance, deepens further.

The mediation undertaken by the Quad (the United States, the UAE, Saudi Arabia, and Egypt) offered a glimmer of hope to millions of displaced Sudanese and refugees. It aimed to end the war through a humanitarian ceasefire, followed by a permanent cessation of hostilities and a Sudanese-led political process. Yet it appears that the political Islamist factions aligned with the army have no interest in stopping the conflict, believing that the continuation of fighting cements their presence as a de facto power, especially if the army secures some battlefield gains. These factions and their allies do not view Sudan as a nation or its people as citizens whose lives are being taken or whose homes are being destroyed by their own compatriots; instead, they view the state solely through the lens of the group.

Stopping the bloodshed and ending humanitarian suffering through peace is the choice of the Sudanese people. But the continuation of fighting serves only one side. What does the Sudanese citizen gain from ongoing military operations, the siege of cities, and aircraft swarming the skies? The courageous decision facing all warring parties is to accept a ceasefire and end the war. Yet the army and the Muslim Brotherhood, driven by flawed military calculations and a belief in preserving the group’s power at the expense of the state, even at the cost of its ruin, continue to block that path. Any settlement poses a direct threat to the political Islamists’ existence and opens the door for civilian forces to shape Sudan’s future.

It is time for civilian forces to take their rightful place in shaping the roadmap, advancing a political settlement, addressing the humanitarian crisis, and ensuring that food and medical aid reach civilians affected by the conflict. It is equally vital to remove the Muslim Brotherhood and the militias responsible for acts that verge on war crimes, hold obstructers of the settlement process accountable, and designate Sudan’s Islamic Movement and the National Congress Party as terrorist organisations, following the example of several Arab states, so that Sudan can regain stability and its political settlement is not undermined. A genuine civil dialogue must include moderate currents, constrain hardliners, and restructure the state’s security institutions on professional foundations.

The army and its allies have repeatedly derailed attempts to halt the fighting, even though a military solution to Sudan’s crisis is not possible. As the conflict persists, regional and international actors continue their efforts to secure a ceasefire and revive political dialogue, particularly given that the war has claimed hundreds of thousands of lives, displaced millions, and inflicted immense material damage.

The international Quad has proposed terms that in no way compromise Sudan’s sovereignty, unity, or territorial integrity; on the contrary, it views full sovereignty as essential for peace and stability. It supports rapid, safe, and unhindered humanitarian access across Sudan, the protection of civilians in accordance with international humanitarian law, and an end to indiscriminate aerial and ground attacks on civilian infrastructure. Yet the army’s position has aligned with that of Sudan’s Muslim Brotherhood, which has long been embedded within the institution. Meanwhile, the Quad initiative is explicit in excluding violent groups from Sudan’s political future. These conflicting positions reveal deep divisions within the army’s camp regarding the war and what comes after it, especially as developments on the ground are no longer in the army’s favour.

The Quad affirms that Sudan’s political future must be decided by the Sudanese people through an inclusive and transparent transitional process free from the control of any warring party. Establishing an independent, civilian-led government with broad legitimacy and responsibility is essential for Sudan’s long-term stability and for preserving state institutions. However, it appears that the international community must exert greater collective pressure on the parties to end the war, especially as the side refusing a ceasefire seems to have committed violations that fall under international accountability. International organisations must investigate any abuses on the ground while simultaneously advancing the political settlement roadmap.

The international community is expected to play an increasingly active role in the Sudanese crisis, particularly following the UN Security Council’s decision to extend the arms embargo on Darfur through September 2026, amid growing civilian casualties and the army’s deviation from its core duty of protecting the state, becoming instead a force contributing to the collapse of what remains of Sudan’s institutions. International pressure on the army to accept a humanitarian truce may prove the most viable option for all parties.

The United States has concluded that the Sudanese army used chemical weapons in 2024 and has imposed sanctions on General Abdel Fattah Al Burhan. The accusations have now entered a new phase, with the identification of potential perpetrators and the case moving toward investigating possible responsibility within mid-level ranks of the military, in coordination with the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW).

Reports published since early 2025 have linked the rise in respiratory illnesses and unusual environmental changes to the possibility of chemical contamination in several areas, most notably Khartoum, central Sudan, and northern Darfur. These assessments were based in part on an imported shipment of 17 barrels of liquid chlorine from an Asian country in July 2024, which arrived at Port Sudan on August 17, 2024. At the same time, an investigation by France 24 revealed that the Sudanese army carried out airstrikes using chlorine gas to retake the Al Jili refinery located north of Khartoum, which had been under the control of the Rapid Support Forces.

The chemical weapons file in Sudan is now entering a phase of closer scrutiny, especially given the possibility that such weapons may have been used more than once. Sudan could face penalties under US law for the use of chemical weapons, and if international organisations, such as OPCW, of which Sudan is a member, launch a formal investigation, the case will take on broader international dimensions. The sanctions currently imposed are insufficient to halt the use of chemical weapons; the situation requires a firm international stance based on what has been uncovered, along with a thorough investigation and accountability for those responsible, particularly since chemical evidence is difficult to conceal completely, even over time.

If Sudanese society seeks to end this catastrophic war, it must redefine its relationship with the army, armed groups, the Muslim Brotherhood, and its regional and international partners. The military must become part of the state’s sovereign architecture — one that does not turn against the state nor align with one faction over another, but instead works to prevent national collapse. This includes isolating war criminals and perpetrators of grave violations while creating safe exit pathways for those coerced into fighting or forced recruitment. It also requires removing the Islamist Movement from political life through a legal and political framework based on accountability and transitional justice that enables Sudan to embark on a path toward genuine peace, address its economic crises, and recalibrate its foreign relations through a political process insulated from the pressures of armed actors.

Peace in Sudan will not be achieved except through a political settlement guaranteed and supported by the international community. The world must intensify its efforts and apply meaningful pressure to secure peace, as some parties to the conflict cannot be left to determine Sudan’s fate while using internationally prohibited weapons, committing widespread violence and destruction, and prioritising perpetual war over political compromise and national reconciliation.

Mohammed Salem Alsalmi is Senior Researcher and the Head of Research & Advisory Sector at TRENDS Research & Advisory