Peace in Sudan… and Washington’s Interests

Peace in Sudan… and Washington’s Interests
Mohamed Hassan Kaboshia

Amidst the intense American diplomacy aimed at extinguishing the flames of the war of dignity being waged by the army and the people of Sudan, a pivotal question arises: What will these efforts bring to Washington itself if they succeed?

Beyond the humanitarian rhetoric, strategic analyses indicate that Washington is focusing its attention on a set of geostrategic interests that will reshape its sphere of influence in the vitally important Horn of Africa region.

From a military perspective, Washington stands to gain the most from ending the conflict by neutralizing the “Janjaweed terrorist militia,” which is supported by hostile foreign states. Eliminating this militia represents a dual strategic achievement. On the one hand, it removes from the scene a terrorist organization closely linked to aggressive states that are rivals of Washington, such as Russia, which has worked through the Wagner mercenaries to strengthen its influence in the region. On the other hand, this achievement directly contributes to counterterrorism efforts by liberating Sudan from the clutches of these criminal militias that have sown ruin and destruction. This, in turn, strengthens the security of the United States’ regional allies. Moreover, stability in Sudan will pave the way for broader military cooperation and could revive negotiations on establishing a U.S. naval base on the Red Sea coast. This would enhance the ability to monitor vital international waterways and counter the influence of aggressive foreign states that support terrorism.

Politically, I believe that the success of U.S. mediation in liberating Sudan from the Janjaweed militia, backed by aggressive states, would be a diplomatic victory for Donald Trump, restoring America’s prestige and demonstrating its ability to confront terrorism and its state sponsors.

This success would not only bolster the United States’ standing in Africa but also increase its negotiating leverage in all international forums. More importantly, liberating Sudan from these terrorist militias would address the root causes of the ongoing humanitarian and security crises that threaten the stability of its strategic neighbors, such as Egypt and Ethiopia, both vital to U.S. interests. This achievement would also contribute to weakening the influence of aggressive states in the region, which have built their presence largely through their support of the Janjaweed terrorist militia. This will redraw the map of alliances and influence in the region in favor of the Western camp led by Washington.

Sudan represents a treasure trove of vast economic resources, and Washington will gain economic advantages and an opportunity to capitalize on them once it is liberated from the clutches of the war ignited by the Janjaweed militia and its aggressor allies. With its immense mineral wealth of gold and rare minerals, its vast agricultural lands, and its promising oil potential, Sudan constitutes a promising market and a vital source of raw materials.

Liberating Sudan from these terrorist militias will enable major American companies to enter the market strongly and exploit these opportunities that have been obscured by wars and political instability. This transformation will contribute to creating economic partnerships that reconnect the Sudanese economy to global markets through Washington, instead of leaving it prey to the Janjaweed militia and the aggressor states that have plundered Sudan’s resources and wealth for years.

A closer look at the situation reveals that Trump (in his own words) is playing the role of “savior” in Sudan, secretly positioning himself to reap strategic gains and enormous influence that will bolster the United States’ position as a dominant superpower in the fight against terrorism and aggressor states in one of the world’s most volatile and crucial regions (the Horn of Africa). Will we seize this opportunity and help Sudan recover?