U.S. Pressure for a Humanitarian Truce and the Rejected Political Proposal: Implications for the Sudan Conflict

Executive Overview

As the Sudanese conflict enters an increasingly volatile phase, Washington has intensified its diplomatic engagement to secure a credible humanitarian ceasefire and introduce a long-term political roadmap aimed at ending the war.

U.S. Envoy Massad Boulos publicly urged both the Sudanese Armed Forces (SAF) and the Rapid Support Forces (RSF) to accept an unconditional humanitarian truce. This call comes as the RSF announced a unilateral three-month pause, which remains operationally meaningless without SAF’s formal acceptance.

Simultaneously, African Security Analysis (ASA) has confirmed that the Sudanese government received and rejected in full a comprehensive U.S. draft proposal that attempted to set the foundations for a post-war political and security architecture, including justice mechanisms, institutional reforms, and an internationally monitored ceasefire mechanism.

The refusal underscores the deep mistrust, political fragmentation, and diverging strategic objectives that continue to block diplomatic progress.

U.S. Diplomatic Push Amid a Stalemate

Speaking in Abu Dhabi, Envoy Massad Boulos lamented the absence of any formal response to the U.S. humanitarian truce proposal, calling for immediate acceptance "without preconditions."

The diplomatic deadlock persists due to:

• ongoing offensives by both SAF and RSF,
• failure of previous ceasefires,
• absence of command discipline,
• regional actors enabling parallel agendas,
• mutual suspicion of ceasefire exploitation for military advantage.

The U.S. message marks a more direct pressure campaign aimed at:

• breaking the negotiation paralysis,
• leveraging the RSF’s unilateral truce into a bilateral agreement,
• resetting humanitarian conditions on the ground.

The RSF’s Unilateral Ceasefire: Symbolic but Non-Operational

The RSF’s declaration of a three-month humanitarian pause could have been a diplomatic confidence-building measure. However, on the ground:

• SAF continues multi-axis offensives in Kordofan and Darfur.
• RSF maintains active operations elsewhere.
• No monitoring mechanism exists to verify compliance.
• Civilians see no reduction in hostilities.

For Washington, the unilateral RSF gesture is insufficient and potentially a strategic communication ploy. Only a dual acceptance under an international verification framework can deliver meaningful impact.

From Ceasefire to Transformation: Content of the U.S. Draft Proposal (Rejected in Full)

ASA has obtained confirmation that the Sudanese government rejected the entire U.S. draft political and security proposal, which outlined a deeply structured post-conflict transition.

Justice, Accountability & Rule of Law

The proposal required:

• Launching a Sudanese-led transitional justice process.
• Establishing accountability mechanisms for wartime abuses.
• Embedding these processes within a civilian-governed legal framework.

These provisions aimed to restore legitimacy and break cycles of impunity.

Security Sector Reform (SSR) & Army Restructuring

The draft outlined:

• Comprehensive restructuring of the SAF into a unified, professional national army under civilian authority.
• Removal of political loyalties, including residual linkages to the Muslim Brotherhood.
• Mandate to defend national sovereignty and address external threats.

This restructuring would eliminate parallel command structures and restore military coherence.

Dismantlement of Parallel Security Entities

The proposal called for:

• The dissolution of all parallel intelligence and security units.
• Neutral, independent, accountable security sector oversight.
• DDR processes (Disarmament, Demobilization, Reintegration) for irregular forces and armed groups.

This was meant to eliminate dual militaries and de-politicize the security landscape.

Ceasefire Monitoring and Compliance Mechanisms

International partners would oversee a Ceasefire Coordination Committee, responsible for:

• Monitoring and verifying ceasefire commitments.
• Coordinating humanitarian access.
• Managing disputes over violations through dialogue rather than collapse.
• Ensuring compliance through a Quad-appointed liaison.
• Providing international guarantees and rapid incident resolution.

Protection and Return of Civilians

The proposal guaranteed:

• Safe, voluntary return of IDPs and refugees.
• Full protection, safety assurances, and initial compensation for affected citizens.

This component aimed to stabilize communities and begin socio-economic recovery.

Government’s Rejection

According to ASA’s sources, the Sudanese authorities rejected the entire package without modification, viewing it as:

• too intrusive,
• too constraining for military autonomy,
• overly empowering of international oversight,
• and misaligned with current power calculations.

The rejection illustrates the gulf between diplomatic expectations and battlefield-driven political strategies.

Operational Context: Why the Humanitarian Pause Matters

Violence has escalated across:

• North and South Kordofan,
• Darfur,
• El Obeid and the surrounding supply routes,
• Babanusa and Kadugli,
• Dilling and strategic oil and gold corridors.

Civilians face:

• fuel blockades,
• shortages of medical supplies,
• road insecurities,
• collapse of essential services.

A ceasefire would allow:

• humanitarian corridors,
• medical evacuations,
• resupply of besieged towns,
• stabilization of displacement flows.

Strategic Assessment: The Prospects of a Ceasefire Are Low

Barriers

• SAF sees no incentive for a pause while gaining military leverage.
• RSF uses unilateral gestures to gain political recognition.
• Regional actors (UAE, Egypt, Chad) have conflicting interests.
• International monitoring is politically sensitive and currently unacceptable to the warring parties.

Opportunities

• Humanitarian collapse may force pragmatic concessions.
• International pressure is increasing.
• Regional fatigue may reshape calculations.
• RSF’s unilateral announcement opens a narrow diplomatic window.

Outlook

Unless significant leverage is applied, Sudan is unlikely to see a verified, bilateral humanitarian truce in the immediate term.

The rejection of the U.S. proposal indicates that neither party is ready to commit to a structured political transition or deep security reform, despite catastrophic civilian suffering.

ASA estimates high probability of:

• continued multi-front combat operations,
• worsening humanitarian conditions through Q1 2026,
• expansion of RSF and SAF offensives along strategic economic corridors,
• increased regionalization of the conflict through proxy support.

Conclusion

The U.S. intervention represents one of the most comprehensive diplomatic attempts to reshape Sudan’s war trajectory — combining humanitarian urgency with long-term institutional reform.

Yet the full rejection of the proposal and the lack of SAF commitment to the RSF’s unilateral truce reflect a deeper structural reality: the conflict remains driven by power consolidation, military momentum, and regional strategic competition.

Without:

• enforceable monitoring tools,
• neutral verification mechanisms,
• and credible guarantees from regional and international actors,

the path toward peace will remain obstructed.

Sudan now enters a critical phase where humanitarian suffering will intensify, political space will further collapse, and military logic prevails over negotiations.

African Security Analysis (ASA) will continue to monitor:

• shifts in U.S. positioning,
• RSF–SAF frontline dynamics,
• regional diplomatic interventions,
• humanitarian indicators and population displacement trends.

Classification: Strategic Humanitarian, Diplomatic & Security Assessment