As Sudan teeters on the brink of prolonged instability and the Sudanese Armed forces (SAF) led by General Abd el-Fatah al-Burhan, appear to be gaining ground in the capital, Khartoum, the recent formation of a parallel government raises urgent questions about the country’s future. This rival administration—normalized through a political charter in Nairobi—is led by the Rapid Support Forces (RSF) headed by General Mohamed Hamdan Degalo , better known as Hemedti, along with movements aligned with his forces. This development comes in response to the devastating war that has gripped Sudan since 2023 and which escalated further in April 2024, with deep political fractures and persistent security threats eroding any prospects for a unified national government.

In an interview with Sky News Arabia, Ibrahim al-Mirghani, a key figure in the new, parallel government, articulated its primary objective: ensuring security and delivering essential services to civilians caught in the crossfire of ongoing military confrontations. He stressed the urgent need to protect the population, emphasizing the devastating toll of clashes between the SAF and the RSF. Positioning itself as a stabilizing force, the parallel government aims to fill the governance vacuum in war-affected regions.

Yet, this initiative faces staunch domestic opposition. The Civil Democratic Alliance of Revolutionary Forces  (known as the Sumoud coalition) led by the SAF has rejected the formation of the parallel government. Former Prime Minister Abdallah Hamdok has also opposed the move, advocating for a political resolution to prevent the country from splintering into rival factions and deepening existing divisions at an already precarious moment. Egypt, too, has voiced its opposition to the parallel government.

A Path to Common Ground?

Is there a viable middle ground between the parallel government and the Sumoud coalition? A sustainable path toward stability may require both factions to acknowledge their shared interests—most notably, the imperative to combat terrorism and resist foreign interference.

One of the most pressing threats is Iran’s growing influence in Sudan. Tehran has long cultivated ties within Sudan’s military establishment, particularly among forces loyal to General al-Burhan. Left unchecked, this influence risks turning Sudan into yet another proxy battleground, attracting extremist elements that could further destabilize the region. A unified Sudanese front—incorporating both the parallel government and Sumoud—may be critical in countering Iran’s strategic ambitions and preventing Sudan from becoming a pawn in broader geopolitical conflicts.

Other international and regional players are also seeking to influence the situation. Russia is exploiting Sudan’s hardships, backing both sides, but at the same time cooperating with the SAF to secure a naval base on Sudan’s  Red Sea coast. Egypt is siding with the SAF to guarantee its border security and gain support for Cairo’s position in its dispute with Ethiopia over the Nile dam.

Meanwhile, the UAE is more closely aligned with the RSF and the parallel government. It has recently shown a readiness to extend humanitarian aid while also expecting to expand its gold acquisitions from RSF-controlled areas. The SAF government has accused the UAE of supplying weapons—particularly drones—to the RSF, which has used them to strike key targets in SAF-controlled areas. A recent attack of this kind damaged a major power plant. In response, the Sudanese government announced March 6 that it would file a complaint against the UAE at the International Criminal Court. The UAE has denied allegations that it has supplied weapons to the RSF.

The Role of the United States, Israel, and Regional Powers in Sudan’s Reconstruction

Beyond immediate security concerns, Sudan faces an unprecedented economic and humanitarian crisis. Years of conflict have devastated key industries, displaced millions, and left the country’s infrastructure in ruins. The international community—particularly the United States and its allies—must engage more proactively to support Sudan’s reconstruction and prevent further collapse.

Notably, in its final days, the Biden administration declared on January 7, 2025, that the RSF had committed genocide against civilians in the Darfur region. The administration imposed sanctions on RSF members and some of its supporters including seven Emirati companies.

The Trump Administration’s Role in Rebuilding Sudan

The Trump administration should play a pivotal role in stabilizing Sudan through a combination of diplomatic, economic, and security measures. While Trump’s foreign policy has often emphasized disengagement from prolonged conflicts, his previous administration also demonstrated a willingness to broker strategic deals, such as the Abraham Accords. A similar approach—leveraging economic incentives and regional partnerships—could prove effective in Sudan.

1. Security Assistance & Counterterrorism Efforts: The U.S. could work closely with regional allies, including Egypt, the UAE, Saudi Arabia and Israel, to strengthen Sudan’s ability to counter terrorist threats and curb Iranian influence. Restoring Sudan’s internal security forces—while ensuring they operate under civilian oversight would be a critical first step.
   
   
2. Economic Revitalization & Infrastructure Investment: The Trump administration should encourage American businesses to invest in Sudan’s key sectors, particularly agriculture, energy, and telecommunications, provided that stability and security prevail. Restoring Sudan’s access to international financial markets and providing targeted economic relief through institutions like the World Bank and IMF will be essential to stabilize the country’s collapsing economy.
   
   
3. Mediation Between Rival Factions: The U.S. could use its diplomatic leverage to facilitate negotiations between the parallel government and Sumoud, pushing both sides toward a consensus-driven transition process. Given Trump’s past engagement in unconventional diplomatic negotiations, his administration might be uniquely positioned to broker a settlement that prioritizes national stability over factional power struggles.
   
   
4. Leveraging Israel’s Role in Reconstruction: Israel, which has previously engaged with Sudan on security and economic cooperation, could serve as a partner in rebuilding governance structures and providing technological support. A stronger Israeli-Sudanese partnership—potentially backed by U.S. diplomatic efforts—could accelerate reconstruction in vital sectors such as water management, renewable energy, and digital infrastructure.

Toward a Broader Consensus

The establishment of a parallel government presents both an opportunity and a risk. While it may offer immediate governance solutions in conflict-ridden areas, it also threatens to widen Sudan’s political fractures. Achieving stability will require a political equilibrium—one in which Sudanese factions prioritize national unity over power struggles. Any meaningful strategy must focus on addressing security threats, countering Iranian influence, and securing international support for economic recovery. The U.S., Israel, and other regional powers must play a more active role in facilitating this process. Ultimately, Sudan’s future depends on the emergence of a broader consensus—one that bridges the divide between the parallel government and Sumoud, while ensuring that international actors engage more decisively in the country’s recovery.Without American intervention, the likelihood of escalation—and the opportunity for malign actors to exploit the situation— appears increasingly probable.

JISS Policy Papers are published through the generosity of the Greg Rosshandler Family.

Photo: IMAGO / Xinhua / Mohamed Khidir