ºÚÁÏÉçÇø

The devastating conflict in Sudan, between the Sudanese Armed Forces and Rapid Support Forces has brought catastrophic human suffering as well as political disintegration, and regional instability. Years of intermittent mediation efforts and repeated ceasefires have failed to yield positive results. But a credible and realistic mechanism has emerged: the International Quartet, composed of the US, Egypt, ºÚÁÏÉçÇø, and the UAE.

These four powers have come together to form a joint committee with the objective of coordinating immediate priorities in Sudan; the most important goal is achieving an urgent humanitarian truce.

The convergence of these four influential powers represents a critical development when it comes to international diplomacy and Sudan’s war due to the fact that it represents a distinct and rare alignment of global and regional interests. In addition, this initiative signals a long-overdue recognition that Sudan’s suffering should not be disregarded and that its people deserve stability and peace.

Another key significance of the quartet is anchored in the intersection of global influence and regional legitimacy that it bears; Each of the four countries can play a unique role. The US can bring diplomatic leverage, economic influence, as well as the ability to mobilize multilateral institutions and humanitarian organizations and mechanisms. Egypt, on the other hand, is Sudan’s direct neighbor and shares deep historical, cultural, and economic ties with Khartoum. As a result, it has strategic concerns over the Nile River, border security, and refugee flows, which make Sudan’s stability an existential interest.

In addition, ºÚÁÏÉçÇø and the UAE add a crucial dimension of Gulf economic power and political mediation experience. Both regional powers have played key roles in previous peace processes across the Middle East and Africa, from Yemen to Libya. Together, the alignment of these four powers brings a mission and coherence to what has long been considered a divided and fragmented international response. The four countries can help when it comes to different facets, including humanitarian priorities, geopolitical influence, and financial resources.

Millions displaced by violence could gain a respite.

Dr. Majid Rafizadeh

One of the critical aspects of the initiative, which makes it credible and unique, is that it represents a structured and phased road map. First, there would be a joint operational committee; second phase is a three-month humanitarian truce to stop the violence and facilitate aid delivery; third phase is a permanent ceasefire to consolidate stability; and fourth phase is a longer nine-month transition process aimed at restoring a civilian-led government. The initiative is distinguished by its clarity and sequencing. Unlike many past efforts, the quartet’s framework is clearly outlined with a coherent plan and it contains humanitarian, political, and governance objectives.

This initiative is currently the most valid path toward ending the conflict in Sudan for several intertwined and interconnected reasons. First, the war in Sudan has reached a military and political stalemate, with neither the SAF nor the RSF appearing capable of achieving a decisive victory. Generally, as the human cost escalates and the conflict stagnates, external diplomatic pressure becomes increasingly important and decisive. In this case, the quartet is creating the ripe external environment by uniting actors with direct leverage over both sides for de-escalation.

Second, the initiative is not idealistic; it is realistic due to the fact that it recognizes that there is no viable military solution to the conflict. Both sides in the conflict appear to have exhausted their resources. This means that continued fighting only ratchets up humanitarian catastrophe and the risk of state collapse.

Third, the plan does not view the truce as an end in itself but as an entry point to a broader political transition toward civilian rule. Fourth, each member of the quartet has different influence to capitalize on; for example, the US can apply diplomatic and economic pressure, Egypt can negotiate with the SAF leadership, and the Gulf states can provide reconstruction aid and economic incentives.

In my view, one of the most important aspects of this initiative is the call for a three-month humanitarian ceasefire since an end to hostilities would allow for the reopening of humanitarian corridors, the delivery of food and medical supplies, as well as the restoration of basic infrastructure in devastated regions such as Khartoum, Darfur, and Kordofan. In addition, millions of Sudanese displaced by violence could gain a respite, while aid agencies could operate safely. The truce would also allow hospitals to resume limited operations, and it would enable water and electricity systems to be repaired.

Finally, we should not forget that the formation of this quartet and its decision to act collectively is a powerful acknowledgment that Sudan’s plight matters. It conveys that the suffering of Sudanese civilians has not been disregarded and forgotten.

Stability in Sudan is also essential for protecting Red Sea trade routes, as well as ensuring the stability of the Horn of Africa, and maintaining the security of neighboring states.

In a nutshell, the International Quartet’s initiative, uniting the four countries involved, is currently the most credible, realistic, and comprehensive diplomatic framework to resolve the war in Sudan. The strength of this initiative lies in the convergence of global authority and regional legitimacy, and more importantly, the structured and phased approach focusing on humanitarian relief and long-term governance.

• Dr. Majid Rafizadeh is a Harvard-educated Iranian American political scientist. X: @Dr_Rafizadeh