Trump's Promises to Halt Atrocities in Sudan: What Lies Ahead?

Sat Nov 29 2025 09:59:23 GMT+0200 (Eastern European Standard Time)

In the wake of escalating violence in Sudan, President Trump's recent pledge to address the atrocities raises questions about the potential impact of U.S. intervention amidst complex regional dynamics.

With Sudan engulfed in conflict for over two years and peace negotiations stalled, Trump has vowed to intervene after pressure from Saudi Arabia’s Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman. The situation remains dire, with millions displaced and recent violence exacerbating the humanitarian crisis. While Trump's involvement could shift alliances, skepticism dominates regarding the efficacy of external mediation given historical alliances and rivalries in the region.

Wracked by war for two-and-a-half years, Sudan lies in ruins. Half a dozen peace initiatives have failed, none of them able to pressure or persuade regional powerbrokers to push for a compromise.

Many Sudanese ask if the world cares whether they live or die.

Could that be about to change with direct intervention from the Oval Office?

By US President Donald Trump's own admission, the conflict was not on his charts to be involved in that. I thought it was just something that was crazy and out of control.

But that was before a White House meeting 10 days ago with Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman of Saudi Arabia. He briefed the president on what was happening and asked him to intervene.

Afterwards, Trump said: We're going to start working on Sudan.

He later posted on social media that tremendous atrocities are taking place in Sudan. It has become the most violent place on Earth and pledged to work with Egypt, Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates to end the violence.

In fact, the US had already been involved in negotiations, but perhaps Trump's personal leverage with the leaders of those allies – all accused of backing one side or the other in Sudan – could make a difference.

With nearly 12 million driven from their homes and famine conditions continuing in parts of the country, the Sudanese are desperate for something – anything - that could break the deadlock.

Trump's comments on the situation came just a few days after the civil war reached a new nadir of horror at the end of October.

Following a 500-day starvation siege, the paramilitary Rapid Support Forces (RSF) captured the city of el-Fasher, the army's last stronghold in the westernmost region of Darfur.

The RSF fighters rampaged through the city, killing, raping and looting. Estimates for the numbers of people who perished in this ethnically targeted massacre range upwards from 5,000.

Mobile phone footage filmed by the killers themselves of them tormenting, torturing and killing victims - known as trophy videos - circulated on social media.

In the wake of the killing, the war leaders' posturing followed a long-standing pattern.

After seizing el-Fasher, RSF head Gen Mohamed Hamdan Dagalo, known as Hemedti, announced that he would be ready for a ceasefire. He wanted to polish a reputation stained by the mass killing.

But stung by their humiliation on the battlefield, Sudan's generals were not ready to compromise.

Armed forces chief Gen Abdel Fattah al-Burhan, leader of the UN-recognised government, rejected a ceasefire, promising to fight on.

Burhan - and especially the Islamists within his camp - are in fighting mood now, describing the RSF as a terrorist rabble that must be defeated completely.

When they have just suffered a defeat, the army commanders consistently vow to avenge their losses and regain their pride. And when they are winning, they insist that they can finish the job.

During 40 years of wars in southern Sudan, Darfur and elsewhere, this mindset has meant that Sudan's leaders spurn formulas for peace offered by mediators.

With the country now facing de facto partition, this is the pattern that Trump needs to break.

Regional states back different sides in the war.

Egypt and Turkey have stepped up their arms supplies to the Sudanese army. Saudi Arabia also leans towards the army.

Multiple reports from investigative journalists and intelligence agencies show that the UAE has been arming the RSF, and it is reportedly increasing its supplies. The UAE has always denied this.

The first step towards peace is for the key regional states to cease fuelling the flames and instead use their influence for peace.

For six months, US Secretary of State Marco Rubio and senior advisor for Africa Massad Boulos have been hammering out a plan.

The Quad - the US plus Egypt, Saudi Arabia and the UAE - established a plan with three key elements:

a ceasefire
access for humanitarian aid
negotiations to set up a government headed by civilians.

The Quad affirmed its plan in September and met again in Washington last month. But it could not quite close the gap between the Sudanese warring parties, and then the RSF attacked el-Fasher.

On face value, Bin Salman's appeal to Trump gives much more weight to the Quad plan.

The US president is the one figure who could intervene with UAE President Sheikh Mohamed bin Zayed Al Nahyan and persuade him to change course.

The problem is that Saudi Arabia and the UAE are engaged in a fierce rivalry for influence across the Arab world.

Despite his personal appeal to the US president, it is not clear whether Bin Salman offered to set aside his differences with the Emirati leader in order to make peace in Sudan.

Sudan's long-suffering people are hoping that the Trump White House has the skill and patience for peace. Even if the Quad wins a ceasefire, it is only the beginning.

With aid budgets cut to the bone, the $3bn (£2.3bn) urgently needed for humanitarian aid will be hard to find. Without a massively stepped-up aid effort, any truce will be fragile.

And that is just the beginning of a long and fraught road to peace in Sudan.

Many worry that if the Arab countries steer the peace process, Sudan's destination will be to become an Arab dependency.