President Donald Trump has just completed a visit to the Middle East, which included stops in Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates (UAE), as well as Qatar and the controversial gift of a new Air Force One. As a result, either knowingly or unknowingly, he has become an even more major player in the region, and it will be difficult to limit his engagement only to those matters high on his agenda.
The Middle East is an enormously complex region, often marked by undercurrents of regional and global controversy and competing interests. These countries have a tradition of expecting favors and preferential treatment.
The Sudan Civil War and the interests of external states: What the mainstream media overlooked
What probably got minimal coverage in the media, if any at all, was the discussion with the Saudis or the UAE about the Sudan civil war as it enters its third year of conflict.
The Sudanese conflict is one of the world’s worst humanitarian crises, with famine across Sudan desperately affecting the lives and survival of children and women, killing millions. Consider the stunningly long timeframe: The second Sudanese civil war, from 1983 to 2005, is reported to have caused the death of an estimated two million people, with widespread documentation of famine and atrocities. Overall, so far, 13 million people have been displaced.
The magnitude of this human tragedy is enormous, but it gets virtually no attention in comparison to the Russian war in Ukraine or the situation in Gaza.
Middle East countries are deeply involved in, and on opposite sides of, the conflict. It is widely known that the main Sudanese civil war combatants, the Sudan Army and the Rapid Support Forces (RSF), are separately being significantly assisted by these two Islamic States, turning the conflict into a proxy fight, with the UAE secretly supplying weapons to the RSF, and Saudi Arabia and Egypt supporting the Sudanese Government and its military arm, the Sudanese Armed Forces (SAF), along with Iran also supplying weapons.
To clarify: The SAF is the official national army of Sudan, led by General Abdel Fattah al-Burhan. Before the current civil war, the SAF and the Rapid Support Forces (RSF) were uneasy allies who jointly staged a military coup in 2021, effectively ending Sudan’s fragile transition to democracy. However, tensions escalated into open conflict in April 2023, as the two forces vied for supremacy. The SAF views the RSF as a rebellious paramilitary force.
In short, the SAF operates as the de facto representative of the Sudanese state in international forums, like the UN. They have been trying to assert their legitimacy and gain international recognition and have made some progress in this regard: Internationally, with Turkey bolstering the SAF’s air capabilities, China supplying arms and Russia offering military aid (even though historically it had ties with the Wagner Group which supported the RSF); nationally, gaining support from various Sudanese factions, including some former rebel groups from Darfur and popular resistance movements.
The report of the most recent United Nations Fact-Finding Mission on the Sudan states that:
“The world has witnessed two years of ruthless conflict, which has trapped millions of civilians in harrowing situations, subjecting them to violations and suffering with no end in sight. Amid the rising tide of hate speech and ethnically driven violence and reprisals, we fear the darkest chapters of this conflict have yet to unfold.”
In conclusion, the UN’s report “urged other states to refrain from fueling the war and ensure respect for international humanitarian law.”
Related Articles: Sudan’s Past and Present, a Gross Miscalculation | Hunger Hotspots: Famine Looms in Gaza While Risk of Starvation Persists in Sudan, Haiti, Mali, and South Sudan
The American response: Sanctions on Sudan and a deep cut in food aid
In response, the U.S. State Department’s position on the Sudanese Civil War was clear: In January 2025, the U.S. Department of State determined that the RSF committed genocide through acts such as ethnic killings, systematic rape and acts of sexual violence, and preventing access to lifesaving aid.
Both the SAF and RSF have been accused of committing war crimes. Although the SAF and RSF are the two primary warring factions, there are also several smaller armed groups and militias currently involved in the conflict.
This situation was significantly altered on May 22, 2025, when the United States announced that it would impose sanctions on Sudan after determining that the country’s military used chemical weapons last year while fighting against rival paramilitary forces.
“The United States calls on the Government of Sudan to cease all chemical weapons use and uphold its obligations” under the Chemical Weapons Convention, US Department of State spokesperson Tammy Bruce said in a statement.
That such conduct warrants sanctioning is well and good. The underlying question, however, is whether it is anything more than a public gesture.
Consider the facts: U.S. trade with Sudan is virtually nonexistent. Food assistance had been a major part of the U.S. assistance, but in February 2025, U.S. President Donald Trump announced an 83% cut of USAID programs. “Prior to that, USAID had already committed nearly $126 million toward Sudan for this year, and it was not clear whether any of this funding would be delivered. Trump’s Africa team — Sudan envoy among them — has still not been fully staffed.”
International laws, friends and frenemies, and the global media’s inattention
Saudi Arabia and the UAE have been traditionally close allies with shared interests in regional stability and countering political Islam, but their diverging approaches and support for opposing factions in Sudan highlight a deepening strategic rivalry.
This split between two new American friends, the Saudis and the UAE, who may, perhaps, be described as “best frenemies,” is potentially the proverbial “tip of the iceberg” in determining how far “friendship” trumps international conventions.
In addition, this may be a relatively easy one to solve, because it is largely hidden from widespread media attention.
In the future, however, there will be other, more challenging situations where the Trump Administration will have to make difficult choices, both in this region and beyond.
What we have seen is that the current administration is transactionally driven, so that its decisions are less likely to be determined by international obligations. We shall see, and we can always hope for the best…
Editor’s Note: The opinions expressed here by Impakter.com columnists are their own, not those of Impakter.com — In the Cover Photo: US President Donald Trump disembarks Air Force One at King Khalid International Airport in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia, Tuesday, May 13, 2025. Cover Photo Credit: White House / Molly Rile.
