Sudanese politicians and analysts warn that SAF chief Gen. Abdel Fattah al-Burhan and his Muslim Brotherhood–aligned allies, who have already blocked or walked away from multiple peace initiatives since the war began, could now face “unconventional” international pressure if General al-Burhan’s army (SAF) continues to resist the ceasefire and political roadmap proposed by the Quad mechanism.
The concerns come amid an increasingly bleak and complex scene in Sudan, where intensified international pressure is running in parallel with escalating fighting on the ground, as foreign and regional actors push for a deal to halt what many now describe as a humanitarian catastrophe.
The Quad – the United States, the United Arab Emirates, Saudi Arabia and Egypt – has put forward a roadmap built around a humanitarian truce and a combined political and security track. In response, warnings are mounting over the risks of the SAF leadership clinging to a military solution, particularly as allegations grow that proscribed weapons are being used and as Washington publicly raises the issue of possible chemical weapons attacks.
Quad roadmap or open-ended war
Bakri al-Jack, spokesperson for the “Sumud” alliance, warned that Burhan and the SAF command are steering the country toward fragmentation by insisting on a battlefield outcome.
He told the outlet “Duroob” that the warring parties now face only two real options: accept the roadmap laid out by the Quad – with its humanitarian, security and political components – or slide into a scenario of open-ended war.
Al-Jack commented on Burhan’s recent claim that he had rejected a paper presented by US senior adviser Massad Boulos, saying this showed the SAF leadership still seeks to achieve specific military goals “on its own terms” under the cover of returning to the Jeddah process.
He noted that the original Jeddah Declaration contained 14 clauses dealing only with international humanitarian law, with no military provisions or field arrangements.
“It is obvious they are trying to deliver military objectives while talking about going back to Jeddah, even though that declaration never contained such clauses,” he said.
Al-Jack argued that Burhan’s demand to restore the situation to what it was before 15 May 2023 is essentially an attempt to use the threat of continued war to pressure the international community into granting the SAF new gains.
He said the international community appears determined to stick with the Quad initiative as “the only realistic option” to end the conflict, warning that any attempt to circumvent it will trigger escalating political – and possibly legal – pressure.
Among the measures he sees on the table are opening a formal file on alleged chemical weapons use, designating armed groups allied with the SAF as terrorist organisations, and exerting direct pressure on politicians backing Burhan.
“If Port Sudan does not respond to all these pressures, the war may continue until one camp collapses, with the added risk of Sudan splintering into rival military cantons,” he said.
Al-Jack ruled out, for now, a push to place Sudan under Chapter VII of the UN Charter, predicting that such a move would run into major obstacles around funding and deploying an international force – leaving “the Quad or open war” as the only live options.
Official ambiguity, political confusion
Mohamed Badr al-Din, acting secretary-general of the Popular Congress Party, described the Sudanese scene as “unstable and fluid”, pointing to the absence of a single coherent state position.
“What worries us is that there is no clear stance issued by a sovereign authority that can be treated as the official position of the state, and that makes it extremely difficult to predict what comes next,” he told Duroob.
Badr al-Din expects the war to continue if the current governmental approach does not change. “I see no path other than war if Burhan persists in his vacillation over peace,” he said.
He did not rule out the use of “unconventional” US pressure tools, especially now that Washington is speaking publicly about alleged SAF violations and the use of chemical weapons – a sign, he argued, that it is willing to wield this file as a political lever to force the military leadership in Port Sudan to accept the Quad roadmap.
A coordinated push to end the war
Mohamed Asmat Yahya, head of the Unified Unionist Party, said that for the first time since the conflict erupted on 15 April 2023, Sudan is witnessing a “serious and coordinated attempt” by the US, UAE, Saudi Arabia and Egypt to stop the war.
He said the seriousness of this effort is reflected in a clear timetable: a three-month humanitarian truce, followed by a nine-month transitional period to address core issues, including unifying armed formations into a single professional national army and dismantling the influence of Islamists in military and civilian institutions.
Asmat noted that the “Tasis” and “Sumud” alliances both welcomed the Quad initiative immediately, in contrast to what he called “hesitation bordering on rejection” from the Port Sudan authorities – a pattern he said recalls the failures of previous talks in Jeddah, Manama and Geneva.
He pointed to a statement by the US State Department’s Bureau of African Affairs alleging the use of chemical weapons in 2024, calling it a dangerous escalation in the international position.
According to him, the statement explicitly demanded that the Port Sudan authorities halt the use of such weapons and cooperate fully with the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons to address the consequences of what Washington described as “an unprecedented crime in Sudan’s internal wars”.
He warned that continued rejection of the Quad plan, coupled with accusations of using banned weapons, could prompt tougher measures by states backing the initiative, and might even open the door to scenarios involving direct intervention.
Domestically, he added, the regime’s intransigence could spur the emergence of a broad civil–military front against the Islamic Movement’s rule and its authority in Port Sudan.
Tactical manoeuvres and shifting positions
Fouad Osman, a political analyst and researcher on East Africa, argued that the current political-military landscape shows the SAF leadership still relying on tactics of manoeuvre and shifting positions on the Quad proposal.
He said the official reactions have swung between conditional acceptance, raising the ceiling of demands, and referring the matter to the Security and Defence Council – a pattern he sees as evidence of the absence of a clear strategic vision and an attempt to buy time and absorb international pressure without making concrete commitments.
Osman told Duroob that the Rapid Support Forces’ unilateral declaration of a truce was a calculated step to improve its humanitarian and political standing internationally, but does not necessarily mean a binding commitment on the ground.
The more significant development, he argued, is that Washington is now tying any serious ceasefire process to the SAF’s acknowledgement of violations and its pledge to refrain from using banned weapons. This, he said, represents a qualitative shift that will raise the cost of continued manoeuvring and narrow the SAF leadership’s room for political evasions.
Osman warned that if Burhan persists with this approach, Sudan could face a prolonged stalemate in which the humanitarian bloodletting worsens, accusations fly between the parties, and ordinary Sudanese citizens bear the heaviest price.
At the same time, he suggested that mounting international – especially US – pressure could eventually force the SAF to accept a revised version of the Quad’s proposals.
“Any attempt to carry on dodging the obligations of a ceasefire without real commitments on the ground will only deepen the military quagmire, weaken Port Sudan’s political standing before the international community, and prolong the humanitarian suffering in the country,” he said.
