After more than three years of war, Sudan is facing a different political and humanitarian moment. The fighting has not stopped, and neither side has won. But the cost of prolonging the war now appears to have outgrown what Sudan, its neighbors, and the wider international community can bear.
As international pressure builds, regional diplomacy gathers pace and the humanitarian collapse deepens, one question is echoing through political and media circles: Is Sudan’s war nearing a settlement, or is the country slipping into another long conflict like those that scarred its past?
Sudan’s history offers little comfort. Its major wars have often lasted decades. The first civil war in the South ran for 17 years, from 1955 to 1972. The second lasted 22 years, from 1983 to 2005. The Darfur war continued for about 17 years, from 2003 to 2020. All ended only after a return to dialogue, understanding, and peace. That history leaves many Sudanese fearing that the current conflict could become a new chapter in the country’s long, open-ended wars.
But others argue this war is different.
Since fighting erupted between the army and the Rapid Support Forces in April 2023, both sides have bet on a swift military victory. As the war enters its fourth year, the limits of that bet are clear. Battles have spread from Khartoum to Port Sudan, Darfur, Kordofan, and Blue Nile.
They have not delivered a decisive victory for either side. Instead, they have plunged Sudan into one of the world’s worst humanitarian crises.
As the battlefield grows more complex, the international community increasingly sees Sudan’s war as a threat beyond Sudan itself. Rising tensions in the Red Sea, fears that chaos could spread through the Horn of Africa, and growing displacement and illegal migration have pushed Western and regional capitals to intensify pressure for a political settlement.
In that context, the recent Berlin conference marked an important milestone. Dozens of countries and international organizations agreed that Sudan’s crisis “cannot be resolved militarily” and voiced clear support for a comprehensive negotiating track.
The United States and the European Union have also stepped up diplomatic efforts to push for a ceasefire, amid growing fears that instability could spread across the region.
One of the clearest signs of this shift came from Massad Boulos, senior adviser to the US president for Arab and African affairs. He said there was “no military solution” to the conflict in Sudan and pointed to an “international consensus” on pushing the parties toward negotiations and a ceasefire.
He also cited US efforts to support humanitarian truces that could pave the way for a permanent halt to the fighting.
The shift does not mean a settlement is imminent. But it does show a growing conviction among influential powers that continued war could lead to the full collapse of the Sudanese state, a scenario feared by many regional and international actors, especially Sudan’s neighbors.
Recent months have also brought more active regional diplomacy than in the war’s early years, when the conflict was often described as the “forgotten war.”
Coordination has grown among the African Union, the Intergovernmental Authority on Development and the Arab League, alongside Gulf, Egyptian and African moves aimed at preventing Sudan’s disintegration or its slide into an open arena for regional conflict.
Those actors know the war will not threaten Sudan alone. It could directly affect Red Sea security, international trade and the stability of neighboring states. That makes a political settlement a regional necessity, not only a Sudanese demand.
Inside Sudan, the army still speaks the language of continued military operations. Yet it has left the door ajar to political solutions. In remarks carrying clear political weight, Burhan recently said that “anyone who reaches conviction and lays down arms, the homeland’s embrace is open to him.”
Observers saw the message as an attempt to open the way for possible settlements, or to encourage defections from the Rapid Support Forces by offering implicit guarantees to those ready to return and join new arrangements.
Still, Burhan continues to say the army is “moving ahead with restoring the state and its institutions.”
That reflects the military establishment’s firm political and military ceiling in any future negotiations, and shows that the path to a comprehensive settlement remains highly complicated, despite mounting pressure to end the war.
Humanitarian pressure
The strongest pressure on all sides may no longer be military or political. It is humanitarian.
The United Nations and international food agencies have warned that Sudan is facing one of the world’s largest hunger crises. According to the Integrated Food Security Phase Classification, or IPC, report issued in May 2026, about 20 million Sudanese are suffering acute food insecurity, while tens of thousands face the risk of famine.
Several areas could face a humanitarian catastrophe if the war continues.
World Food Program Executive Director Cindy McCain said hunger and malnutrition threaten the lives of millions, urging swift action to stop the crisis from becoming a “major tragedy.”
UNICEF Executive Director Catherine Russell said the humanitarian situation had reached a tragic stage, with children arriving at health facilities “too weak to cry.”
Inside Sudanese circles, calls to end the war are widening, even as divisions persist over what a settlement should look like. Some analysts close to the army say falling public support for continued war does not mean accepting the Rapid Support Forces as a force parallel to the state. Any future settlement, they argue, must be tied to rebuilding a unified military institution.
Observers say rising international pressure, military exhaustion and humanitarian deterioration could push the warring parties toward a political settlement in the coming phase.
Sharif Mohamed Osman, political secretary of the Sudanese Congress Party, said there was “no military solution and no peace without genuine civilian leadership,” arguing that ending the war requires a comprehensive settlement that rebuilds the state and its institutions.
Other observers say Sudan now stands at a delicate balance point between peace and continued war. Political analyst Mohamed Latif says international conditions, external pressure, and civilian suffering make peace “closer than ever.”
But he also says new fighting fronts and regional complexities continue to prolong the conflict, leaving all options open.
From a security and strategic perspective, military expert Brig. Gen. Dr. Jamal al-Shaheed says Sudan is at an extremely dangerous crossroads. One path leads to a political settlement forced by military exhaustion and international pressure.
The other leads to an “extended war,” where neither side can achieve total victory while state institutions slowly erode under military, economic and humanitarian attrition.
Al-Shaheed warns that time is no longer on Sudan’s side, and that every additional day of war doubles the future cost of peace.
Despite all these signals, the biggest questions remain unanswered: Has the war reached the point of exhaustion that usually precedes settlements? Or is Sudan still at the start of a long conflict whose end has yet to take shape?
