Sudan’s civil war is creeping into its fourth year, and unlike a bad TV series, there is no satisfying finale in sight. Fighting has ebbed and flowed, front lines now roughly trace west-central Kordofan, and the human cost keeps rising while options for peace shrink.

How a domestic fight became everyone’s problem

What began as a power struggle between the Sudanese army and the Rapid Support Forces, or RSF, has been turned into a regional contest. Rich and restless patrons are bankrolling both sides. Their cash, weapons and logistics do more than pay for bullets: they shape who can fight, when, and where, and they make compromise look less attractive.

Who is backing whom?

  • Supporters of the army: Egypt, Eritrea, Turkiye, Qatar, Iran and, increasingly, Saudi Arabia. The United Nations and the Arab League, along with many of those states, recognise army chief Abdel Fattah al-Burhan as Sudan’s head of state.
  • Support for the RSF: The United Arab Emirates has been the main patron, providing money, arms and logistical help that enabled major RSF operations.

The UAE’s backing helped the RSF hold long campaigns, including an siege of el-Fasher that lasted roughly 18 months. When el-Fasher fell, reports and images of extreme violence emerged: executions, torture, abductions and sexual violence. That horror generated critical coverage of Abu Dhabi’s role, but the practical support continued.

Sudan’s geography is not helping

Sudan sits at an awkward and strategic crossroads: the Red Sea, the Horn of Africa, the Sahel and North Africa all collide here. That makes the country valuable to outside powers who see Sudan as central to their security and influence. Neighbouring African states are also being pulled in, sometimes because they have direct interests, and sometimes because they are useful transit points for arms and supplies.

The result is a widening of fault lines across the region. What once looked like an internal crisis risks becoming a much larger regional crisis, with Sudan at the centre.

Diplomacy gets eaten by Gulf rivalries

On September 12, 2025, the Quad format, made up of the United States, Saudi Arabia, the UAE and Egypt, floated a roadmap to end the fighting. There was some early movement and indirect talks, and in theory, a united front by external backers could have pushed both sides toward a deal.

Then real-world politics happened. Tensions between Saudi Arabia and the UAE flared into the open in December after a UAE-backed force in Yemen launched an offensive near the Saudi border. Riyadh publicly rebuked Abu Dhabi and demanded a withdrawal. The UAE announced a pullout, but the sore points remain, and Saudi-aligned outlets regularly accuse the UAE of destabilising the region, including in Sudan.

That Gulf spat matters for Sudan. If Riyadh and Abu Dhabi are busy trading insults, the pressure on the Sudanese army and the RSF to compromise weakens. It could also push more Gulf-backed support in opposite directions, making the conflict harder to end.

What might break the deadlock

The United States still sits at the centre of diplomatic efforts, but there are open questions about how committed the current US administration is to seeing the process through, especially as broader conflicts involving the US, Israel and Iran draw attention away from Sudan.

That said, crises sometimes create incentives to patch things up. If Riyadh and Abu Dhabi decide their rivalry is too costly, a Saudi-Emirati detente could revive stalled talks. Western powers, Turkey, Egypt and others should try to nudge such a rapprochement into being, and then use it as leverage to push for a ceasefire and a genuine intra-Sudanese political process, potentially with African Union and UN facilitation.

Why time is not on anyone’s side

The danger is clear: the longer external actors invest in opposing camps, the more entrenched the war becomes. Local grievances calcify, atrocities continue, and neighbouring states can get dragged into wider confrontations. For civilians in Sudan, the equation is brutally simple: outside support for the fighters means more bombs, more sieges and more suffering.

Sudan’s conflict needs urgent attention. African and international leaders must not let it slip off the agenda, because once a war regionalises, pulling it back to a political solution becomes a lot harder.

Sudan’s civilians are already paying the price. The rest of the region and the world should treat that as reason enough to act, not to look away.