This is a game-changing moment in the course of Sudan's war. We wont know if its good or bad, but it's game-changing...🧵
A few immediate reactions to the news that we knew was coming:
- The US government is not organized to solve the crisis IN Sudan; that's a longer-term objective that requires rebuilding lost expertise within the State Department
- The US is poised to use its diplomatic leverage to mediate a ceasefire among those external backers to the war. But doing that requires new leadership. Rubio is clearly briefed on the conflict, but will have to manage it from on-high. Steve Witcoff has already privately said he has too much on his plate to take on Sudan. Someone like Tom Barrack, who has the experience and the access to Trump, would be a better choice than Massad Boulos, who is seen by the parties to the conflict as a lightweight. Deputy Secretary Chris Landau is also a possibility and has been around the Quad process since it started.
- Whoever leads the US effort, its important that new leadership be given the mandate to signal to everyone that this new effort has Trump's explicit backing
- Trump needs to be careful that he not get sucked into the broader KSA-UAE competition. Despite how he has come into this war, through an explicit request from MBS, he will need to make sure the US is seen as neutral. When Egyptian leader Sisi asked for his involvement in the GERD he was immediately viewed as biased by the Ethiopians.
- I think this makes it harder in the near term to take a hard line against UAE, which is needed to stop their support to the RSF, for fear that it looks like that move was directed by KSA.
- Its important to distinguish between the two wars that are going on and which one a Trump Administration can impact and which it cant.
- Its also important to distinguish between dealmaking and peacemaking. Trump's strength is in the former, not the latter, but over the long term its the latter that Sudan needs.
- The first war is the actual war between the SAF and RSF INSIDE Sudan. Here, I think the US is not poised to do peacemaking, ie addressing the root causes of violence in Sudan that has created the endless cycles of coups and wars since independence. We dont have the expertise anymore or the staying power required to break that cycle. The best we can hope for is to end this latest bout of coups-wars.
- Where Trump is poised to have an impact is in mediating the proxy war that is being waged in Sudan by a set of OUTSIDE actors: KSA, UAE, Turkiye, Egypt, Qatar primarily. This is about elite deals among elite actors. Trump is well placed to play a role here.
- What is missing in Sudan, from the US, the outside actors and the Sudanese themselves, is any vision for what a day after a ceasefire looks like. That dialogue, to the extent that it is happening at all, has been entirely eclipsed by the fighting and the humanitarian calamity.
- In short, Trump would do well to manage expectations from the start about what he can and cannot do in Sudan. Signaling that his interest is in a ceasefire and aid access, but not in what comes next should put the onus on Sudanese parties to begin a more robust effort for transition planning and beyond.
- Last word, be careful what you wish for. Trump's last foray into Sudan resulted in an 11th hour demand for Sudan to sign the Abraham Accords in exchange for being removed from the terrorism list. We know that Trump is always looking for ways he or his friends can personally benefit from whatever deal he does and that he doesnt do anything for free. People should be anticipating now what the price tag for his involvement will be.
###