Sudan marks a grim milestone today: three years of a civil war widely described as the world’s worst humanitarian crisis.
At least 59,000 people have been killed. There have been multiple accusations of genocide in Darfur. Fourteen million people – roughly a quarter of the population – have been forced from their homes, while 19 million face acute hunger. Now, the Iran war is driving up food and fuel prices in an already devastated economy.
And yet, there is still no end in sight to the fighting between the Sudanese army and its former ally, the paramilitary Rapid Support Forces (RSF). Drones have also expanded the battlefield, with those living far from the frontlines also facing threats – unmanned aerial vehicles have killed nearly 700 people so far in 2026, per the UN.
The conflict has grown more complicated due to murky foreign involvement. Three of the same countries that pushed for a humanitarian truce in November – the UAE, Saudi Arabia, and Egypt – along with Russia, have been accused of trying to shape the conflict through a mix of weapons transfers, financial and logistical support, and diplomatic backing.
Despite the international entanglement, the war in Sudan has drawn far less attention than the conflicts in Ukraine and, more recently, Iran.
It’s a topic Ian Bremmer discussed in a GZERO World interview last year with US Senator Mark Warner, who reflected on why the United States – under former President Joe Biden and in the early months of President Donald Trump’s second administration – had failed to act decisively. The Trump administration, for its part, has since led a delegation that presented both sides with a preliminary ceasefire proposal last year, but little has materialized.
Warner argued that neither side in Sudan’s civil war merits US support – “both teams are bad” – but said Trump, in particular, has a unique opportunity to pressure Saudi Arabia and the UAE to stop financing the violence. “It would be a huge policy win,” he said.
