How Foreign Powers Are Fueling Sudan’s Brutal War — What We Know

Overview

The harrowing reports of hundreds of civilians killed after the Rapid Support Forces (RSF) captured El Fasher in Darfur are the latest episode in a devastating conflict that has claimed more than 150,000 lives over the past two-and-a-half years. What is often presented as an internal struggle between RSF commander Mohamed Hamdan Dagalo (Hemedti) and Sudanese Armed Forces (SAF) leader Abdel Fattah al-Burhan is made far more complex — and deadlier — by the opaque involvement of several foreign powers.

Why Sudan matters

Sudan occupies a strategic position between the Middle East and sub-Saharan Africa. It controls roughly 500 miles of Red Sea coastline, extensive agricultural land, significant gold deposits, is the world’s top producer of gum arabic, and contains about 400 miles of the Blue Nile — a central factor in regional water diplomacy. These resources and geostrategic advantages help explain why outside states are deeply engaged.

The humanitarian pause and the Quad

Under growing international pressure following the Darfur violence, the RSF said it would accept a humanitarian truce proposed by the four-country group known as the Quad — the United States, the United Arab Emirates, Egypt and Saudi Arabia. The U.S. State Department said Washington continued to engage both sides to help secure a pause and urged immediate de-escalation to alleviate Sudanese suffering.

Allegations of foreign involvement

Experts, human-rights groups and several Western governments have accused the UAE, Saudi Arabia, Egypt and Russia of various forms of interference: supplying weapons, providing financial and logistical support, offering diplomatic backing, and competing for strategic assets such as Red Sea access, gold, and influence over Nile water politics. All four had earlier supported the military that removed long-time ruler Omar al-Bashir in 2019 and the force that consolidated power in the 2021 coup.

The United Arab Emirates

The UAE has been repeatedly accused of supplying weapons to the RSF and of economic ties to Hemedti through companies based in the Gulf. Investigators and rights monitors say weapons recovered in Darfur can be traced to transfers involving the UAE. The U.S. Treasury’s Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) has sanctioned several companies it says were controlled by Hemedti or close relatives, alleging these firms helped finance the RSF by selling gold mined in areas under RSF control.

The UAE rejects these claims. Anwar Gargash, the UAE’s top diplomatic adviser, described media allegations as "fake news" and called publicly for negotiations and a civilian transition. The UAE’s embassy in Washington has denied providing support to any warring party since the outbreak of the civil war. Still, a U.N. Security Council–appointed expert panel has described some evidence as “credible,” and Amnesty International and other monitors have documented Chinese-made systems and munitions in Darfur traced to various supply chains.

Egypt

Egypt has repeatedly signaled political and diplomatic support for General al-Burhan and the SAF. Cairo’s involvement is driven by national-security concerns — especially the implications of Sudanese instability for Nile water security — and by political calculations about the regional balance of power. Egypt has denied allegations by Hemedti that it has supplied weapons to the SAF; the Egyptian government has been asked for comment by international media.

Saudi Arabia

Saudi Arabia publicly calls for a Sudanese solution and has co-sponsored mediation efforts, but analysts say Riyadh has quietly offered diplomatic backing to al-Burhan. Saudi priorities include securing stability along the Red Sea — a vital route for trade and for Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman’s economic plans — and expanding influence in Africa.

Russia and Wagner

Russia has also pursued influence in Sudan. U.S. officials have accused Moscow of "playing both sides," while reporting and investigations have linked the Russian private military company Wagner to arms and logistical support for actors in Sudan in exchange for mining concessions, especially in the gold sector. After Wagner’s failed mutiny in 2023 and the death of its leader, the Kremlin moved to reassert control over Wagner’s forces while maintaining high-level negotiations with Sudanese authorities, including efforts to secure naval access to the Red Sea.

Wider stakes and consequences

“Whoever controls Sudan is in a position to have influence in the broader region, in the Horn of Africa, as well as sub-Saharan Africa,” — Charles Ray, retired U.S. diplomat.

Foreign involvement has tangible consequences: it can prolong fighting, enable human-rights abuses, and entrench actors who profit from instability. Sudan’s battered institutions, mass displacement, and collapsed economy make the country vulnerable to exploitation by external powers pursuing strategic or economic gains.

What remains uncertain

Many allegations about weapon transfers, commercial networks and diplomatic support remain contested. Several governments have denied wrongdoing and international investigators continue to gather evidence. The full extent and nature of external support to each side will shape Sudan’s future and the prospects for a durable peace.

Conclusion

The Sudan conflict is no longer only an internal civil war between two generals. It is a battlefield where regional and global powers seek influence, often at great cost to civilians. Ending the bloodshed will require not only a credible ceasefire and humanitarian access but also coordinated international pressure to block external flows of arms and money that fuel the fighting.