The statement, issued by the US, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, and the UAE on Friday, is an indication that Sudan’s warring parties will not have the final say in determining the future of the country and that international positions will have far-reaching consequences.
Large segments of Sudanese welcomed this new international stance, seeing it as the beginning of a course correction. Others, however, warned that such measures could lead to greater complications and possibly confrontations, given their clear aim of sidelining the Islamists and the potentially unpredictable reactions that may follow.
The Quartet set a timeline for ending the war and excluding the Muslim Brotherhood from shaping Sudan’s future. The statement called for a three-month humanitarian truce, to be followed by a permanent ceasefire and a nine-month transitional period leading to the formation of a civilian government. The Quartet stressed that the transition must be inclusive and transparent, and that it should conclude within the specified timeframe in order to meet the aspirations of the Sudanese people for an independent, civilian-led government enjoying broad legitimacy.
Sudan’s political future must be determined by the Sudanese people themselves, not dominated by any of the warring parties, the statement added, stressing that the fate of the country must not be left in the hands of violent extremist groups that are part of, or clearly linked to, the Muslim Brotherhood, whose destabilising influence has fuelled violence and unrest across the region.
In its statement, the US Treasury Department announced that sanctions against Ibrahim and the brigade were in reaction to their involvement in Sudan’s brutal civil war and their ties to Iran, saying that the sanctions aim to curb Islamist influence in Sudan and restrict Iran’s regional activities, which have fuelled instability, conflict and civilian suffering.
“Sudanese Islamist groups have formed dangerous alliances with the Iranian regime. We will not stand by idly and allow them to threaten regional and global security,” said Under Secretary of the Treasury for Terrorism and Financial Intelligence John K Hurley. “The Treasury Department is using our powerful sanctions tools to disrupt this activity and protect US national security.”
The sanctions came in tandem with the unanimous United Nations Security Council decision to extend for another year the arms embargo on Darfur. The African Union Commission and IGAD said the Quartet’s position aligns with the African roadmap for peace in Sudan, expressing readiness to work with the Quartet, the Sudanese people, and other partners to end the war, safeguard Sudan’s sovereignty and unity, and advance an inclusive civilian-led political transition.
In a joint statement, the two organisations announced that, in cooperation with the Arab League, the UN and the European Union, they would convene a new round of renewed consultations with Sudanese civil groups in October to strengthen Sudanese unity, pave the way to a comprehensive inter-Sudanese dialogue, and steer the country towards a constitutional, civilian-led political system.
In Sudan, reactions to the Quartet’s statement varied. The Foreign Ministry welcomed regional and international efforts that could help end the war, but added what many interpreted as a rejection: that any political process must respect Sudan’s sovereignty and its legitimate institutions. The ministry noted that it is the Sudanese people alone who can decide how they are governed through national consensus. The government also criticised the US sanctions, arguing that such unilateral measures do not advance the stated objectives of the Treasury Department’s announcement, namely achieving peace in Sudan and preserving international peace and security.
Observers noted the contrast between the position of the Transitional Sovereignty Council and that of the Foreign Ministry regarding the Quartet’s recent initiative on Sudan. While the Sovereignty Council attacked the Rapid Support Forces (RSF), accusing them of defying the Quartet’s statement by launching attacks on civilian facilities, the Foreign Ministry expressed implicit reservations about the same statement, describing it as unacceptable interference in Sudan’s internal affairs.
The Sudanese Minister of Culture, Information and Tourism Khaled Al-Eissar criticised the international statements and unilateral sanctions against specific Sudanese figures, saying they constituted a blatant violation of international charters and standards, and an attempt to undermine the will of the Sudanese people following every advance by the Sudanese Armed Forces.
In a post entitled “Ink on Paper” published on his official page, Al-Eissar wrote that the Sudanese people are fully aware of such political manoeuvres, stressing that “no external party has the right to determine the choices of the Sudanese.” He added that whenever public jubilation rises in response to military achievements, some international actors rush to issue decisions devoid of real value in an attempt to disrupt the internal scene, describing this as unacceptable selectivity that exposes the double standards applied to Sudanese affairs.
The Justice and Equality Movement dismissed the sanctions imposed on its leader, Ibrahim, as worthless, describing them as an unjust measure lacking both legal basis and objective justification.
Meanwhile, Sommoud, the Sudanese Civil Forces Alliance led by former prime minister Abdallah Hamdok, welcomed the Quartet’s statement and urged the warring parties to commit to it immediately. The alliance also called on the regional and international community to ensure close coordination in implementing the vision it outlined, which it described as a path to ending the suffering of the Sudanese people. Sommoud considered the Quartet’s statement a comprehensive, practical plan for halting the war, saying that the explicit reference to Islamists as an obstacle to peace represented an accurate diagnosis of the roots of Sudan’s crisis. The Federal Gathering also welcomed the Quartet’s statement, calling it a sound step towards consolidating Sudan’s sovereignty and unity. It added that the rejection of military solutions and the cessation of external support, both highlighted in the statement, constitute a strong basis for negotiations, and described the attribution of responsibility to the Islamists as an accurate assessment.
Similarly, the Sudanese Congress Party welcomed the Quartet’s statement as a pivotal step towards ending the war. It rejected any attempt to mortgage Sudan’s future to the interests of the military factions or the extremist ideology of the Muslim Brotherhood. The party urged firm commitments and real pressure to secure an immediate halt to the fighting.
The Taasis Alliance, which includes the RSF and their allies, also welcomed the Quartet’s statement, describing it as a significant step in the right direction, towards ending the conflict.
Hamdok also called on the Quartet to designate the Islamist movement and the National Congress Party in Sudan as terrorist organisations, saying that the Muslim Brotherhood’s position had become comparable to that of Al-Qaeda and the Islamic State. Hamdok added that what appears on Sudanese social media does not reflect the majority of Sudanese, noting that many are languishing in the prisons of the Muslim Brotherhood for calling for an end to the war. He stated that the Sudanese people have never been as united on any issue as they are in their hatred of the Brotherhood’s regime.
Islamists in Sudan, meanwhile, viewed the Quartet’s statement as a systematic attempt to exclude them from the political scene and as deliberate marginalisation of the military establishment. Islamist writers, journalists, leaders and their allies launched an attack against the Quartet and its statement, asserting their rejection of any external mediation. The dissolved Islamist Movement rejected the Quartet’s proposals for ending the conflict and sidelining groups linked to political Islam, and opposed the participation of the UAE in seeking solutions to Sudan’s crisis.
The so-called Broad Islamic Current, led by the dissolved movement’s Secretary General Ali Karti, stated he “deplore[d] the language of the Quartet’s statement, which reeks of arrogance and blatant interference in Sudan’s internal affairs, and is an attempt to impose external solutions.” He added that the UAE is unqualified to speak on security and peace in Sudan, accusing it of supplying the RSF with arms, money, and mercenaries. Karti demanded that the UAE must withdraw from supporting the RSF and apologise to the Sudanese people before speaking of peace.
The Broad Islamic Current also rejected any attempt to equate the army with the RSF, insisting that “no power in the world can impose the RSF as a party to any political or military settlement,” and describing the accusations levelled against some groups — referring to the Islamist movement and its affiliates — of fuelling the conflict as a “desperate bid to weaken the unity of the Sudanese people”.
All this comes at a time when the magnitude of the challenges and risks facing the hoped-for peace process in Sudan is widely recognised. Chief among those is the reaction of Sudan’s Islamists, who command vast networks spanning media, finance, political and social alliances, as well as entrenched roles in the security services and the army, and their relations both inside and outside the country. They remain determined to resurrect the rule they exercised for three decades under ousted president Omar Al-Bashir.
Compounding Sudan’s difficulties is the disastrous division of Sudan between two rival governments, alongside an international community that has formally refused to recognise the Taasis Alliance, even as its envoys — including UN Secretary General’s Envoy Ramtane Lamamra and the British envoy — have met its leaders. Added to this is the international and regional competition for influence in Sudan.
Another obstacle is the abundance of fissures and profound mistrust among the civilian forces on whom hopes for leading the next stage rest. Any future settlement will depend on their ability to forge a unique model of consensus, coexistence, and democratic civilian transition that reflects their vast diversity.
Ultimately, a key factor will be the seriousness and effectiveness of the international community in supporting the Quartet’s initiative, activating its mechanisms, and sustaining it. Without such commitment, the initiative risks meeting the same fate as its predecessors, squandering Sudan’s last chance of survival as a unified state at a grave cost not only to Sudan, but also to regional and global stability.
* A version of this article appears in print in the 18 September, 2025 edition of Al-Ahram Weekly
Short link: