U.S. Contact With Sudan’s Burhan Exposes Tensions Inside the Peace Process
Washington says neither armed camp represents legitimate government—yet ending the war requires talking to both.
A meeting that was not quite a meeting
U.S. presidential adviser Massad Boulos said he attended a lunch in Egypt with Sudanese army chief Abdel Fattah al-Burhan and reaffirmed efforts toward a political solution. A Sudanese official described it only as a casual encounter and said no formal talks took place.
The ambiguity reflects a larger problem. The United States has said neither the Sudanese Armed Forces nor the Rapid Support Forces represents constitutional rule. Yet both control territory, weapons and access needed for any ceasefire.
The encounter followed Washington’s decision to withhold a visa from Burhan ahead of a UN appearance, reportedly amid disagreement over a U.S.-backed ceasefire proposal. At the same time, regional mediators are divided over how to treat the army, the RSF and their foreign supporters.
WARYATV assessment
Sudan diplomacy is becoming a contest over legitimacy before it becomes a negotiation over peace. Egypt sees the army as a state institution that must survive. Other actors focus on restraining both belligerents. Gulf rivalries further complicate the process.
This fragmentation allows each side to shop for a favorable mediator, reject proposals and continue military operations while claiming openness to dialogue. The war has displaced more than 14 million people, but the diplomatic architecture remains less coordinated than the external networks sustaining the combatants.
Consequence
A workable process must separate three questions: an immediate humanitarian truce, security arrangements between armed forces, and the eventual political order. Trying to settle all three in one bargain gives spoilers too many vetoes. The latest U.S.-Burhan contact may reopen communication, but without a unified regional framework it risks becoming another photo opportunity in a war built on diplomatic division.
