Sudan’s conflict has created a crisis with deep political implications that transcend its borders. The fighting between the Sudanese Armed Forces (SAF) and the Rapid Support Forces (RSF) is not just a humanitarian catastrophe; it is a complicated geopolitical problem that has engaged a variety of regional and international players. The response from international groups to try and manage the situation in Sudan highlights a multidimensional political calculus toward stabilizing the region and restructuring Sudan’s political landscape.

IGAD’s intervention shows the built-in difficulties of regional mediation in a fractured political environment. By prioritizing direct negotiations between the conflicting parties, IGAD seeks to foster a resolution that is led by Sudanese stakeholders. However, plenty of challenges remain. Some factions, notably within the SAF, have been particularly resistant to meaningful discussions, undercutting the organization’s capacity to facilitate a political transition. Adding to the destructive dynamic are the competing interests of IGAD’s members. Various member states have either historical or strategic interests with particular factions in Sudan, and these affiliations undermine IGAD’s credibility by facilitating the perception of partiality. These internal divisions not only limit the organization’s leverage but also prevent it from establishing and enforcing an effective and all-encompassing roadmap for peace.

In parallel, the African Union has approached the crisis from a perspective that emphasizes democratic governance and a civilian-led transition. AU’s political vision aims to address and dismantle the entrenched militarization that has long defined the power structures of Sudan. Its backing for initiatives like the proposed deployment of the East African Standby Force (EASF) reflects an attempt to combine security with humanitarian goals, even though Making this vision operational is politically difficult. Uniting the AU’s diverse member states is no easy task, complicated by divergent national interests and historical alliances. The AU’s emphasis on a civilian-led process, while ideologically compelling, is often met with firm resistance from entrenched military elites who perceive such impediments as direct threats to their interests. This tension between normative aspirations and the hard realities of power politics encapsulates the broader challenges facing regional institutions in conflict resolution.

On the international scale, the United Nations has become a crucial mediator in its efforts to incorporate divergent political and humanitarian agendas into an overall approach. The UN’s multilateral approach, exemplified by initiatives like the Jeddah talks, aims to foster conditions conducive to ceasefire agreements and post-ceasefire political negotiations.  But these efforts are invariably complicated by the convergence of competing global interests in Sudan. The involvement of major powers such as the United States adds an additional layer of strategic complexity. U.S. advocacy for strict adherence to ceasefire commitments, coupled with substantial financial support for humanitarian operations, reflects a dual strategy aimed at curbing regional instability while fostering conditions that might eventually lead to broader political transformation. However, the U.S.’s multilateral approach has its contradictions, a focus on immediate stability sometimes risks sidelining longer-term democratic reforms, a trade-off that complicates the broader political objectives in Sudan.

Saudi Arabia’s role in facilitating peace talks further sheds light on the complex balancing act of political strategy and security interests. Riyadh has attempted to position itself as a central mediator in this region, hosting negotiations and offering incentives for adherence to ceasefire agreements. Its interest is not purely humanitarian, but rather a wider agenda of protecting regional trade routes and reducing security threats along its southern border. This convergence of strategic and economic imperatives highlights the fact that political goals in the international landscape are frequently intertwined with national security interests, Unlike China and Russia, which have taken a more cautious position. China’s calls for restraint, alongside its emphasis on respecting Sudanese sovereignty, reflect its longstanding policy of non-interference, one that allows it to protect its economic interests without getting embroiled in internal conflicts. Russia, for its part, has voiced concern about the humanitarian impact of the fighting but has played a largely passive role. The different ways these global powers reacted reveal an international landscape in which strategic imperatives often dominate over humanitarian or democratic concerns.

These political maneuvers have major implications for both Sudan and the wider region. Mediators in the region are unable to provide a unified approach, and this can prolong the conflict further, and destabilize an already war-torn region further. Internal divisions in institutions like IGAD and AU, combined with the strategic positioning of global powers, risk perpetuating a status quo that prioritizes military rule over civilian authority. Such a scenario would not merely constrain development within Sudan; it could also exacerbate instability in neighboring states and trigger an expanded regional crisis.

Within Sudan itself, the international responses are deeply intertwined with the nation’s internal political dynamics. The challenge of reconciling entrenched military interests with the aspirations of an increasingly vocal civil society presents a major obstacle to meaningful political reform. External efforts to impose a political solution are often met with skepticism by local factions, who view such interventions as infringements on Sudanese sovereignty. This inherent tension between external mediation and internal political legitimacy is one of the most formidable barriers to achieving a durable peace.

Sudan’s crisis is a manifestation of a wider geopolitical struggle in which global players such as the United States, Saudi Arabia, China, and Russia, each with their strategic agendas, transform the nation into a microcosm of global power struggles. These competing interests form a complicated matrix of alliances and antagonisms that not only amplify local conflicts with global ambitions but also complicate efforts to formulate a coherent international strategy addressing both immediate security concerns and long-term political transformation. Meanwhile, regional mediators and international players are stuck with entrenched obstacles; from internal political fragmentation and national biases to a maze of contradictory strategic imperatives, that often prioritize short-term security over democratic reform. This delicate equilibrium between competing forces leaves Sudan’s future, and that of the broader region, deeply uncertain as the ongoing struggle to break the cycle of entrenched power continues.

By Tsegaab Amare, Horn Review, Researcher