NextFin news, On November 24, 2025, Sudan’s army chief Abdel Fattah al-Burhan publicly rejected the latest ceasefire proposal presented by the US envoy Massad Boulos on behalf of the Quad mediating group, composed of the United States, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, and the United Arab Emirates (UAE). The rejection was formalized in a video address released by his office, in which Burhan branded the proposal as the “worst yet” and unacceptable to his government. Central to his objection was a sharp accusation of bias: Burhan claimed that the Quad’s mediation was compromised by the UAE's involvement, which he charged was echoing Abu Dhabi’s positions that favor the Rapid Support Forces (RSF) rebels. The proposal notably was criticized for allegedly undermining Sudan’s armed forces by dissolving security agencies and allowing militias to remain operational, a framework the army chief found intolerable.
The rejection comes in the context of a brutal conflict that began in April 2023 between the Sudanese Armed Forces (SAF) led by Burhan and the RSF paramilitary commanded by Mohamed Hamdan Dagalo (known as Hemedti). The war has caused tens of thousands of deaths and displaced about 12 million people, creating one of the world’s largest humanitarian crises. Despite numerous mediation initiatives—including platforms in Jeddah and the Intergovernmental Authority on Development (IGAD) in East Africa—lasting peace has remained elusive. The latest ceasefire proposal was part of renewed US-led efforts, following an appeal by US President Donald Trump and Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman to end the conflict.
Burhan’s rejection also directly targeted Massad Boulos, accusing him of threatening the army and trying to impose terms that do not recognize the SAF’s position in Sudan’s future governance. He called for mediators to adopt a “positive” and “proper” approach to peace, insisting that any acceptable deal must include the full retreat and confinement of the RSF. The RSF, contrastingly, indicated willingness to abide by the ceasefire terms.
Sudan’s military conflict is geopolitically charged, with neighboring Egypt and regional powers like the UAE and Saudi Arabia playing roles in the dynamics. The UAE has been accused internationally of supplying arms to the RSF, accusations it denies. Egypt supports SAF, viewing stability in Sudan as critical to its territorial security. This regional entanglement exacerbates mediation challenges and feeds perceptions of bias—especially where mediators hold partisan stances or interests aligned with one side.
Analysis reveals the entrenched complexity underpinning the failure of ceasefire negotiations. The multiplicity of mediators and platforms—including the Quad, Jeddah platform, and IGAD—creates fragmented diplomatic efforts prone to forum shopping and inconsistent pressure on conflict parties. Sudan’s military leadership maintains a strong military-first approach, emboldened by some territorial gains and reluctant to cede ground to negotiations that threaten their political and security interests. Meanwhile, key regional powers’ backing of opposing sides fuels a proxy dimension, undermining prospects for neutral mediation. The absence of inclusive dialogue encompassing armed movements, civil society, and political factions beyond SAF and RSF further narrows peace process legitimacy and effectiveness.
Humanitarian conditions paint a dire backdrop, with over half the population displaced and facing food insecurity. Continued conflict threatens to destabilize the wider Horn of Africa region and compound refugee flows. Economically, Sudan’s disruption undermines trade corridors and worsens poverty, fracturing an already fragile state. The sustained war and stalled peace efforts reduce foreign investment and aid delivery effectiveness, deepening socio-economic vulnerabilities.
Looking forward, Sudan’s peace prospects rest on strengthening mediator neutrality and inclusiveness. Burhan’s proposal to engage Qatar and Turkey as alternative mediators—seen as potentially less biased—signals a regional realignment aimed at circumventing perceived Quad partiality. International actors, led by the US under President Trump’s administration, face pressure to recalibrate mediation strategies, emphasizing coordinated multilateral frameworks that unify conflicting platforms and pressures. Stronger deterrence mechanisms and sanctions could be necessary to compel conflict parties toward negotiation.
Moreover, sustainable conflict resolution requires broad-based political settlements incorporating all armed groups, civil society, and political forces, transcending zero-sum military confrontations. Without addressing the political foundations of Sudan’s fractious governance—including the military’s role, Islamist influences, and demands for civilian rule—the cycle of violence and failed ceasefires will likely continue. Regional stability hinges on a diplomatic breakthrough that meets the security and governance needs of all Sudanese stakeholders, ensuring a viable path for peace and reconstruction beyond the battlefield.
According to France 24, al-Burhan’s rejection underscores both the hostility toward current US-led mediation approaches and the challenges posed by regional power plays, particularly the role of the UAE within the Quad. The army chief’s stance also reveals a wider strategic calculus prioritizing military dominance and political control, rather than immediate peace concessions. As the war enters its third year, the international community’s response, with increased coordination and neutrality, will be vital in preventing further humanitarian deterioration and promoting a durable ceasefire in Sudan.
Explore more exclusive insights at nextfin.ai.
