Washington is hosting talks between the Sudanese government and the U.S. administration to explore ways to end the war and outline the contours of a new “road map” that the United States could adopt to help achieve that goal.
The composition of the Sudanese delegation now in Washington reflects both Khartoum’s focus on the security file and the nature of the messages it brings. Alongside Acting Foreign Minister Mohieddin Salem, who heads the delegation, are Lt. Gen. Ahmed Ali Sabir, chief of military intelligence; Col. Amr Abu Ubaida; and the military attaché and security adviser at Sudan’s embassy in Washington.
The talks mark the first real test of how well Sudan’s government can adapt to the Trump administration’s new foreign policy approach. Communication is taking place not only through traditional diplomatic channels but also in direct coordination with Mossad Bolus, the president’s senior adviser for Arab and African affairs – a sign of a U.S. shift toward direct engagement, replacing the complex political tracks that prevailed in the past.
The negotiations come as Sudan faces a rapidly worsening humanitarian catastrophe.
The United Nations continues to sound the alarm, calling for an end to hostilities to save civilian lives and deliver vital humanitarian aid.
U.N. Secretary-General António Guterres and other senior relief officials describe the situation as a “catastrophic famine,” warning that what is happening – particularly the siege of El-Fasher, the capital of North Darfur – amounts to “war crimes” and “ethnic cleansing.”
The city remains under siege by the Rapid Support Forces (RSF), which continue to launch attacks on Sudanese army positions there.
Sudanese sources told Alhurra that the Sudanese army delegation’s talks in Washington revolve around a series of targeted exchanges – the core of a “potential deal” Khartoum hopes to secure with the Trump administration through Bolus.
According to these sources, the first involves a trade-off between the “El-Fasher card” and Washington’s possible designation of the RSF as a terrorist organization. The siege, they say, is being used as “criminal evidence” to persuade U.S. officials.
The delegation argues that “the RSF’s systematic actions prove it is not a political actor that can be negotiated with, but a criminal militia.”
The same sources say Khartoum is also pursuing what they call a broader strategic exchange – the “Russia card” for pressure on the UAE. They note that Khartoum understands Washington’s deep concern over Russia’s plan to establish a naval base in Port Sudan. The Sudanese offer, they say, is straightforward:
“We are prepared to review our agreements with Moscow and safeguard U.S. and allied interests in the Red Sea in exchange for genuine, effective American pressure on the United Arab Emirates to halt its military and logistical support for the RSF.”
A third proposed trade-off concerns governance: a security-and-stability government in exchange for excluding civilian rule. The sources explain that “the delegation is now floating the idea of an expanded technocratic government whose goal is not politics, but restoring security, stabilizing the country, and managing relief and reconstruction.”
Such a government, they add, “would operate under the army’s protection – a formula designed to reassure Washington that it would be dealing with a state capable of enforcing order.”
Despite Khartoum’s success in bypassing regional platforms and gaining direct access to Washington, the key question now is whether the proposal presented by the Sudanese military delegation to Bolus will win the Trump administration’s support, and whether Washington will choose to deepen its involvement in efforts to end the war in Sudan.
