By Dr. Al-Sadiq Khalafallah
For more than five years, Washington has watched Sudan’s suffering unfold — issuing statements, holding meetings, and expressing “concern,” yet showing no genuine intent to end the conflict or advance a political solution. Despite repeated calls for leadership, the U.S. approach to Sudan remains symbolic at best and cynical at worst.
Today, the Sudan file in Washington has been reduced to an internal exercise managed by mid-level officials and business intermediaries who lack both the authority and the regional understanding to make any meaningful impact. If the United States were truly serious about stopping the war, Sudan would already be a priority on the desks of senior policymakers — from Secretary of State Marco Rubio to senior congressional leaders. Instead, it remains an afterthought in American foreign policy.
This complacency is not new. For nearly four decades, successive U.S. administrations have delegated the Sudan portfolio to intelligence and security agencies, while both the White House and Congress have remained largely disengaged since 1989. The result has been a fragmented, reactive policy that has only deepened Sudan’s instability and prolonged its suffering.
Between 2015 and 2020, my institute — the Hemti Dimti Institute — organized four official congressional delegations to Sudan. The first came in November 2015, followed by two in April 2018 and March 2019, just before the revolution, and a final visit in February 2020. In total, fourteen members of Congress participated — all influential voices in security and foreign affairs. They witnessed firsthand the Sudanese people’s determination for freedom and democracy and introduced several bills supporting Sudan’s transition, even before the fall of the al-Bashir regime.
That period represented a brief moment of hope — one in which genuine American engagement seemed possible. But that hope has since faded. In recent years, I have spoken with many of those same congressional members — informed, committed leaders who understand Sudan well. They now express frustration at being excluded from current consultations on the Sudan crisis. Their exclusion is not a bureaucratic oversight; it is a reflection of how low Sudan ranks on Washington’s list of priorities.
Sudan’s future cannot be left to the whims of second-tier officials or private actors operating without strategy, accountability, or political weight. Genuine progress requires top-level leadership — from the White House, the Secretary of State, or senior congressional figures such as Brian Mast, Chairman of the House Foreign Affairs Committee.
Anything less is mere theater. And as long as Sudan’s fate is handled by those without the power, knowledge, or experience to manage such a complex crisis, Washington’s inaction will continue to cloud Sudan’s political future.
The United States has the tools, the influence, and the moral responsibility to help bring peace to Sudan. What it lacks — and what Sudan desperately needs — is seriousness.
Related Topics:
Sudan Crisis: RSF Agrees to US-Backed Proposal for Humanitarian Truce
Sudan’s El-Fasher: RSF Atrocities Raise Fears over Trapped Civilians
Saudi FM Joins Quad Meeting on Sudan
