U.S.-Sudan Engagement Resumes Amid Ongoing Civil Conflict: Implications for Regional Stability

By African Security Analysis (ASA)

On Monday, August 11, 2025, the United States and Sudan conducted discreet high-level talks in Switzerland, marking the first substantive engagement between the two governments since the change of the U.S. administration. This meeting comes nearly a year after Sudan’s military government boycotted a U.S.-mediated peace summit in the same country, signalling a cautious recalibration in bilateral relations.

Participants and Agenda

ASA sources confirm that the discussions involved Massad Boulos, Senior Advisor for Africa at the U.S. Department of State, and President Abdel Fattah al-Burhan, Sudan’s military ruler, alongside their respective delegations. The meeting reportedly lasted approximately three hours. While U.S. and Sudanese state media remained silent on the encounter, independent Sudanese outlets and AFP reported that the discussions cantered on a potential U.S. peace initiative. Sudanese reporting suggested a narrower focus, emphasizing humanitarian access and temporary ceasefires rather than comprehensive conflict resolution.

Notably, Sudan’s government has maintained a strict refusal to negotiate with the Rapid Support Forces (RSF), the paramilitary faction whose 2023 mutiny precipitated the ongoing civil war. This structural division between the military and RSF remains the primary obstacle to any inclusive political settlement.

Flight tracking data supports ASA reporting that a Qatari jet transported Burhan to Zurich and returned to Port Sudan the following day, indicating Qatar’s facilitation of the Swiss meeting. This aligns with Qatar’s historical role as a discreet intermediary in Sudanese and broader Horn of Africa diplomacy.

U.S. Messaging and Strategic Significance

Following the Swiss meeting, Boulos issued a brief statement on X (formerly Twitter) condemning recent RSF attacks in western Sudan. While not directly referencing his meeting with Al-Burhan, the statement reaffirmed U.S. concern over civilian protection and unimpeded humanitarian access:

“The United States condemns the killings of civilians, allegedly by the Rapid Support Forces (RSF) in Abu Shok camp in El Fasher, North Darfur. We remain deeply alarmed by the deteriorating situation and reports of RSF violence against civilians in and around El Fasher. We call for unhindered humanitarian access and the protection of civilians, including safe passage for those fleeing violence.”

ASA analysis notes that U.S. diplomatic engagement in Sudan has significantly weakened since the departure of former Special Envoy Tom Perriello in January 2025. Perriello’s neutral approach, refraining from designating either faction as “legitimate,” had previously strained relations with Sudan’s military government, contributing to the near freeze in bilateral communications. The absence of a dedicated special envoy represents a critical gap in U.S. policy and suggests reliance on multipurpose officials like Boulos for conflict engagement.

Historical and Regional Context

U.S. engagement in Sudan has long relied on a special envoy model, dating to 1999. Figures such as Senator John Danforth (appointed 2001) played pivotal roles in negotiating the peace agreement that ended the Second Sudanese Civil War and paved the way for South Sudan’s independence. Subsequent envoys struggled to produce durable outcomes in Darfur (2003–2019), despite active mediation by the African Union and Qatar. Since the resurgence of conflict in 2023, following the withdrawal of UN peacekeeping troops, regional actors have remained largely peripheral, reflecting both the complexities of intra-Sudanese dynamics and a lack of international strategic cohesion.

Current Conflict Dynamics

The Sudanese civil war pits Al-Burhan’s military faction against the RSF. Both emerged from the 2021 coup that toppled Sudan’s civilian government but turned on each other in 2023, plunging the country into protracted fighting. Despite repeated international offers of mediation—from the United States, Saudi Arabia, Türkiye, and the East African bloc IGAD—no meaningful negotiations have occurred since the conflict’s inception. Early ceasefire attempts in 2023 produced minimal compliance and limited humanitarian relief.

Strategic Implications

ASA analysis identifies several key implications from the recent U.S.-Sudan engagement:

1. U.S. Policy Reorientation: The absence of a dedicated special envoy signals a departure from past U.S. engagement strategies in Sudan, relying instead on multi-regional actors like Boulos. This may reduce U.S. leverage over both the military and RSF, limiting its ability to broker enforceable agreements.

2. Qatari Mediation Influence: Qatar’s role in facilitating the Swiss meeting reinforces its position as a discreet but influential mediator in Sudanese affairs, with potential implications for broader Gulf involvement in Horn of Africa security dynamics.

3. Humanitarian and Security Risks: The ongoing inability to negotiate directly with the RSF exacerbates civilian vulnerability, particularly in Darfur. Limited U.S. engagement, combined with the RSF’s continued military offensives, suggests that humanitarian corridors and ceasefire adherence will remain fragile.

4. Regional Stability Considerations: Renewed U.S.-Sudan contact, while primarily bilateral, may influence regional calculations, especially among IGAD member states, Egypt, and Saudi Arabia. Strategic coordination—or its absence—could determine whether Sudan becomes a deeper source of regional instability.

Conclusion

The Swiss talks reflect a tentative recalibration of U.S.-Sudan relations, driven by both diplomatic necessity and international pressure to address humanitarian crises. However, ASA assesses that without structural shifts—such as the creation of an empowered special envoy or inclusive negotiations with the RSF—the potential for a durable political settlement remains limited. Sudan’s civil conflict continues to pose significant risks to regional security, humanitarian stability, and international diplomatic credibility.