Sudan FM to Asharq Al-Awsat: New US Sanctions Won’t Affect Warring Parties

Smoke billows behind buildings in Khartoum on June 2, 2023, as fighting between Sudan's warring generals intensified. (AFP)
Smoke billows behind buildings in Khartoum on June 2, 2023, as fighting between Sudan's warring generals intensified. (AFP)
TT

Sudan FM to Asharq Al-Awsat: New US Sanctions Won’t Affect Warring Parties

Smoke billows behind buildings in Khartoum on June 2, 2023, as fighting between Sudan's warring generals intensified. (AFP)
Smoke billows behind buildings in Khartoum on June 2, 2023, as fighting between Sudan's warring generals intensified. (AFP)

The Sudanese army and Rapid Support Forces (RSF) were not surprised with Washington’s announcement on Thursday that it was imposing new sanctions on them due to their role in the ongoing conflict in the country.

Sudanese political parties dismissed the impact the sanctions will have on the army and RSF, but acting Foreign Minister Ali Sadiq told Asharq Al-Awsat that the people will bear the brunt of them.

Sudan’s Ambassador to the US Mohamed Abdalla Idris announced that his government rejects the sanctions, saying such an approach had been used before and it had led to the destruction of peoples in the Arab and Islamic worlds.

Moreover, he noted that the US was a mediator in attempting to resolve the conflict, so how could it possibly impose sanctions on the parties it is talking to.

He added that the sanctions have been imposed on companies owned by the people, meaning Washington was collectively punishing them.

Furthermore, he revealed that the army will resume its participation in the ceasefire negotiations once the other party commits to its pledges.

Half-step

US Senator Jim Risch was scathing of the Biden administration for imposing the new sanctions.

“Thursday’s actions do not even represent a half-step in what needs to happen. The sanctions designations, while positive in their own right, do not openly hold accountable the top Sudanese individuals responsible for the catastrophic situation in Sudan,” he said in a statement.

“The people most responsible for destabilizing the region and ongoing brutality against the Sudanese people remain untouched by US sanctions.”

“Not unlike its policy response to the civil war in northern Ethiopia, the administration once again has avoided holding accountable top-level officials of the warring parties in Sudan,” he stressed.

“We can't let another African conflict of this magnitude persist without taking more transparent and direct action against those responsible for the fighting, which has killed hundreds, injured thousands, and displaced millions. These actions once again come short of real accountability,” he stressed.

Limited impact

Development and rights expert in Geneva Abdulbaqi Jibril told Asharq Al-Awsat that the US sanctions will not have a major impact on the current situation in Sudan.

He cited Sudan’s past experience in dealing with sanctions. Washington had imposed unilateral economic sanctions for two decades on the former regime. They were introduced during the term of former President Bill Clinton in 1997 and lifted in 2017 under then President Donald Trump.

The impact of sanctions is “limited at best” and very few vital sectors are affected by them, remarked Jibril.

The previous sanctions played a major role in impoverishing the people, he noted. They played a direct role in deepening unprecedented economic corruption.

He explained that the American measures at the time forced Sudan out of the world’s banking and financial system, compelling the former regime to use complicated means to meet basic needs.

The former government managed to mitigate the impact of the sanctions and trade embargo by resorting to financing outside the global banking system. This in turn limited the state institutions’ ability to control the movement of funds in the country.

International relations professor in Sudan Salaheddine al-Doma told Asharq Al-Awsat that the sanctions are “very effective.”

The warring parties are well aware that the US is serious about achieving the people’s aspirations in civilian rule because it accomplishes its interests.

If developments go against US wishes, then Russia and China will be able to impose their influence in Sudan, he noted.

Moreover, Washington’s failure to achieve civilian rule in Sudan will have an impact on President Joe Biden’s reelection bid next year, he added.



What Do ‘Expert Level’ Talks Signal for the Progress of the Iran-US Nuclear Negotiations? 

US Secretary of Energy Ernest Moniz and Head of the Iranian Atomic Energy Organization Ali Akbar Salehi, left, meet at a hotel in Vienna, July 9, 2015. (Carlos Barria/Pool Photo via AP, File)
US Secretary of Energy Ernest Moniz and Head of the Iranian Atomic Energy Organization Ali Akbar Salehi, left, meet at a hotel in Vienna, July 9, 2015. (Carlos Barria/Pool Photo via AP, File)
TT

What Do ‘Expert Level’ Talks Signal for the Progress of the Iran-US Nuclear Negotiations? 

US Secretary of Energy Ernest Moniz and Head of the Iranian Atomic Energy Organization Ali Akbar Salehi, left, meet at a hotel in Vienna, July 9, 2015. (Carlos Barria/Pool Photo via AP, File)
US Secretary of Energy Ernest Moniz and Head of the Iranian Atomic Energy Organization Ali Akbar Salehi, left, meet at a hotel in Vienna, July 9, 2015. (Carlos Barria/Pool Photo via AP, File)

Negotiations between Iran and the United States over Tehran's rapidly advancing nuclear program will move Wednesday to what's known as the “expert level” — a sign analysts say shows that the talks are moving forward rapidly.

However, experts not involved in the talks who spoke with The Associated Press warn that this doesn't necessarily signal a deal is imminent. Instead, it means that the talks between Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi and US Mideast envoy Steve Witkoff haven't broken down at what likely is the top-level trade — Tehran limiting its atomic program in exchange for the lifting of economic sanctions.

“Agreeing to technical talks suggests both sides are expressing pragmatic, realistic objectives for the negotiations and want to explore the details,” said Kelsey Davenport, the director for nonproliferation policy at the Arms Control Association who long has studied Iran's nuclear program.

“If Witkoff was making maximalist demands during his talks with Araghchi, such as dismantlement of the enrichment program, Iran would have no incentive to meet at the technical level.”

That technical level, however, remains filled with possible landmines. Just how much enrichment by Iran would be comfortable for the United States? What about Tehran's ballistic missile program, which US President Donald Trump first cited in pulling America unilaterally out of the accord in 2018? Which sanctions could be lifted and which would be remain in place on Tehran?

“The most important determinant of expert talks’ value lies in whether there is a political commitment to do something and experts just need to figure out what,” said Richard Nephew, an adjunct fellow at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy who worked on Iran sanctions while at the US State Department during negotiations over what became the 2015 nuclear deal.

“If the experts also have to discuss big concepts, without political agreement, it can just result in spun wheels.”

Experts and the 2015 nuclear deal

The 2015 nuclear deal saw senior experts involved in both sides of the deal. For the US under President Barack Obama, Energy Secretary Ernest Moniz reached an understanding working with Ali Akbar Salehi, then the leader of the Atomic Energy Organization of Iran. Both men's technical background proved key to nailing down the specifics of the deal.

Under the 2015 agreement, Iran agreed to enrich uranium only to 3.67% purity and keep a stockpile of only 300 kilograms (661 pounds). Today, Iran enriches some uranium up to 60% purity — a short, technical step away from weapons-grade levels of 90%. The last report by the International Atomic Energy Agency put Iran's overall uranium stockpile in February at 8,294.4 kilograms (18,286 pounds).

The deal also limited the types of centrifuges Iran could spin, further slowing Tehran's ability to rush for a bomb, if it chose to do so. It also set out the provisions of how and when sanctions would be lifted, as well as time limits for the accord itself.

Reaching limits, relief and timelines require the knowledge of experts, analysts say.

“A nonproliferation agreement is meaningless if it cannot be effectively implemented and verified,” Davenport said. “The United States needs a strong technical team to negotiate the detailed restrictions and intrusive monitoring that will be necessary to ensure any move by Iran toward nuclear weapons is quickly detected and there is sufficient time to respond.”

It remains unclear who the two sides will be sending for those negotiations.

Hiccups already heard in these negotiations

Both the Americans and the Iranians have been tightlipped over exactly what's been discussed so far, though both sides have expressed optimism about the pace. However, there has been one noticeable dispute stemming from comments Witkoff made in a television interview, suggesting Tehran could be able to enrich up to 3.67% purity. However, analysts noted that was the level set by the 2015 deal under Obama.

Witkoff hours later issued a statement suggesting that comparison struck a nerve: “A deal with Iran will only be completed if it is a Trump deal.”

“Iran must stop and eliminate its nuclear enrichment and weaponization program,” Witkoff added.

Araghchi responded by warning that Iran must be able to enrich.

"The core issue of enrichment itself is not negotiable,” he said.

Despite that, experts who spoke to the AP said they remained positive about the talks' trajectory so far.

“Although still early stages, I’m encouraged so far,” said Alan Eyre, a former US diplomat once involved in past nuclear negotiations with Tehran. “The pace of negotiations — to include starting expert level meetings this Wednesday — is good.”

He added that so far, there didn't appear to be any “mutually exclusive red lines” for the talks as well — signaling there likely wasn't immediately any roadblocks to reaching a deal.

Nephew similarly described reaching the expert level as a “positive sign.” However, he cautioned that the hard work potentially was just beginning for the negotiations.

“They imply the need to get into real details, to discuss concepts that senior (officials) might not understand and to answer questions. I also think too much can be read into them starting,” Nephew said. “Expert talks can sometimes be a fudge for seniors to avoid working on tough issues — ‘let’s have experts discuss it while we move on to other things’ — or to sidestep big political decisions."

Corey Hinderstein, the vice president for studies at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace and a former US government nuclear expert, described herself as feeling “cautious optimism” over the expert talks beginning.

“Heads of delegation are responsible for setting strategic goals and defining success,” she said. “But if there is a deal to be made, the technical experts are the ones who will get it done.”