Follow us on social

Israel, a behind-the-scenes powerbroker in Sudan

Israel, a behind-the-scenes powerbroker in Sudan

Of the many foreign powers influencing this bloody conflict, Tel Aviv could help claw it back — if it wanted to.

Analysis | Africa

Israel is a behind-the-scenes powerbroker in Sudan.

It’s long been clear that the road to peace in Sudan runs through Egypt, Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates — America’s three closest Arab allies. But last month, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu reminded Sudanese that he has a stake in their country too.

Speaking at the UN General Assembly in September, Netanyahu caused a stir among Sudanese when he held up two maps, ‘The Curse’ and ‘The Blessing.’ The first had Israel’s sworn enemies — Iran, Iraq, Lebanon, Syria and the Houthis in Yemen—marked in black. The second had its friends in green — among them Egypt, Saudi Arabia, the UAE and Sudan.

Shortly after that, Israeli journalist Jonathan Lis wrote that Israel was floating a possible deal to end the fighting in Gaza, in which senior Hamas leaders would go into exile in Sudan. Hamas denied it — Yahya Sinwar would rather die in Gaza than flee to safety. Thee Sudanese Armed Forces, or SAF, denied it too. But the fact that Sudan is on Israel’s radar serves brings into focus how Sudan’s war is entangled in the Middle East’s higher-profile conflicts.

In 2020, as part of a deal in which the Trump Administration removed Sudan’s designation as a state sponsor of terrorism, Sudan agreed to join the Abraham Accords. General Abdel Fattah al Burhan, head of Sudan’s sovereignty council and de facto head of state, met with Netanyahu in Kampala, Uganda. The breakthrough meeting was hosted by Ugandan President Yoweri Museveni, but it was brokered by UAE President Mohamed bin Zayed, known as MBZ. Sudan then froze Hamas assets in Sudan.

In the last days of the Trump administration, al-Burhan signed the declarative section of the Abraham Accord, in the presence of then U.S. Treasury Secretary Stephen Mnuchin. Plans for a formal signing with Israel moved slowly, with a timetable reportedly agreed only in February 2023, when Israeli Foreign Minister Eli Cohen visited Khartoum.

Al-Burhan’s deputy at the time, General Mohamed Hamdan Dagolo, known as "Hemedti" also had close ties with Israel. He developed close relations with the UAE, renting out his Rapid Support Force (RSF) units to fight as mercenaries in Yemen, whereby he also established strong links with Israel’s Mossad.

When war broke out in Sudan in April 2023, pitting the two generals against each other, Israel was in contact with both men. The Foreign Ministry leaned towards al-Burhan and the SAF, Mossad towards the RSF.

Israel’s Arab friends also backed different sides in the war. Egypt supports the SAF, in line with its tradition of backing Khartoum’s military establishment. The UAE provides extensive support to the RSF, even while the private Bank of Khartoum, which is majority owned by UAE financiers, is the main financial conduit for SAF. Saudi Arabia leans towards SAF, worried by the UAE’s destabilizing role in the Red Sea, which it considers its own backyard.

During 18 months of fighting, a succession of mediation initiatives by the U.S., Saudi Arabia, Egypt and African leaders have come to nothing. One reason for this is that each time al-Burhan agrees to meet Hemedti, or to send a delegation to do so, the leader of Sudan’s powerful Islamists, Ali Karti, vetoes the move. Washington has put Karti under sanctions for “actively obstructing efforts to reach a ceasefire.” Karti now lives in Doha.

The Sudanese Islamists have longstanding ties to Hamas, which was a member of the Khartoum-based Popular Arab and Islamic Congress from the early 1990s, where it established offices, businesses, and training camps. Hamas sourced weapons from Sudan, provoking Israeli airstrikes. Active cooperation cooled in 2014, under pressure from Saudi Arabia.

Egypt and Saudi Arabia, despite their long-standing aversion to the Muslim Brothers, have come to believe that the Sudanese Islamists can be managed and no longer pose a threat beyond their own borders. (Egypt’s recent tripartite pact with Eritrea and Somalia also embraces the Damul Jadid group, a branch of the Muslim Brothers in Somalia.) Cairo and Riyadh have been ready to see money and weapons flow to SAF from Qatar, Turkey and even Iran. But Abu Dhabi remains hostile to Islamists, so far unpersuaded by Egypt’s argument that if it can live with the Muslim Brothers next door, the Emirates should be able to do so too.

It's long been clear that a deal in Arab capitals is a prerequisite for ending the fighting in Sudan. The question is how to get there. Secretary of State Anthony Blinken has no visible interest in engaging at the high level that is needed. Initially, he put State Department Africa bureau officials in charge of the file, who are ignored by the Arab powerbrokers. While the current special envoy, Tom Perrellio, in theory reports to Blinken, in practice he doesn’t have the top-level backing needed.

When MBZ met with President Joe Biden last month, and affirmed a ”dynamic strategic partnership, the Joint Statement included boilerplate words on Sudan’s war and humanitarian crisis.

Israel could change the equation. Even preliminary exploration of a plan to relocate Hamas to Sudan would need Israel to chart a path to a deal between al-Burhan and Hemedti. In turn, that will need a change in the military and financial equation—a credible show of force by SAF and its Egyptian backers, along with Emirati leverage on the RSF.

Whatever interests Abu Dhabi may have in Sudan, its stakes with Israel are far higher, and it has both carrots and sticks to pressure Hemedti.

The Hamas-to-Sudan story may be a straw in the wind. Even if it becomes a real prospect, Netanyahu or Hamas’s new leaders could pull out at any moment. Sudan’s generals are no pawns: they are experts at manipulating foreign patrons. But the chatter reaffirms how the fate of Sudan lies in the realpolitik of the Middle East, in the hands of states that see Sudan and its people as tokens in their power games.


Top photo credit: Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu (Office of the President of the Russian Federation/Wikimedia Commons) and General Abdel Fattah al Burhan (Reuters)
Analysis | Africa
Trump ASEAN
Top photo credit: U.S. President Donald Trump looks at Philippine President Ferdinand Marcos Jr., next to Malaysian Prime Minister Anwar Ibrahim when posing for a family photo with leaders at the ASEAN Summit in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, October 26, 2025. Vincent Thian/Pool via REUTERS

‘America First’ meets ‘ASEAN Way’ in Kuala Lumpur

Asia-Pacific

The 2025 ASEAN and East Asia Summits in Kuala Lumpur beginning today are set to be consequential multilateral gatherings — defining not only ASEAN’s internal cohesion but also the shape of U.S.–China relations in the Indo-Pacific.

President Donald Trump’s participation will be the first by a U.S. president in an ASEAN-led summit since 2022. President Biden skipped the last two such summits in 2023 and 2024, sending then-Vice President Harris instead.

keep readingShow less
iran, china, russia
Top photo credit: Top image credit: Russian Deputy Foreign Minister Sergei Ryabkov and and Iranian Deputy Foreign Minister Kazem Gharibabadi shake hands as Chinese Vice Foreign Minister Ma Zhaoxu looks on during their meet with reporters after their meeting at Diaoyutai State Guest House on March 14, 2025 in Beijing, China. Lintao Zhang/Pool via REUTERS

'Annulled'! Russia won't abide snapback sanctions on Iran

Middle East

“A raider attack on the U.N. Security Council.” This was the explosive accusation leveled by Russian Deputy Foreign Minister Sergey Ryabkov this week. His target was the U.N. Secretariat and Western powers, whom he blamed for what Russia sees as an illegitimate attempt to restore the nuclear-related international sanctions on Iran.

Beyond the fiery rhetoric, Ryabkov’s statement contained a message: Russia, he said, now considers all pre-2015 U.N. sanctions on Iran, snapped back by the European signatories of the 2015 nuclear deal (JCPOA) — the United Kingdom, France, Germany — “annulled.” Moscow will deepen its military-technical cooperation with Tehran accordingly, according to Ryabkov.

This is more than a diplomatic spat; it is the formal announcement of a split in international legal reality. The world’s major powers are now operating under two irreconcilable interpretations of international law. On one side, the United States, the United Kingdom, France, and Germany assert that the sanctions snapback mechanism of the JCPOA was legitimately triggered for Iran’s alleged violations. On the other, Iran, Russia, and China reject this as an illegitimate procedural act.

This schism was not inevitable, and its origin reveals a profound incongruence. The Western powers that most frequently appeal to the sanctity of the "rules-based international order" and international law have, in this instance, taken an action whose effects fundamentally undermine it. By pushing through a legal maneuver that a significant part of the Security Council considers illegitimate, they have ushered the world into a new and more dangerous state. The predictable, if imperfect, framework of universally recognized Security Council decisions is being replaced by a system where legal facts are determined by political interests espoused by competing power blocs.

This rupture followed a deliberate Western choice to reject compromises in a stand-off with Iran. While Iran was in a technical violation of the provisions of the JCPOA — by, notably, amassing a stockpile of highly enriched uranium (up to 60% as opposed to the 3.67% for a civilian use permissible under the JCPOA), there was a chance to avert the crisis. In the critical weeks leading to the snapback, Iran had signaled concessions in talks with the International Atomic Energy Agency in Cairo, in terms of renewing cooperation with the U.N. nuclear watchdog’s inspectors.

keep readingShow less
On Ukraine and Venezuela, Trump needs to dump the sycophants
Top Photo Credit: (Official White House Photo by Molly Riley)

On Ukraine and Venezuela, Trump needs to dump the sycophants

Europe

While diplomats labored to produce the Dayton Accords in 1995, then-Secretary of Defense Bill Perry advised, “No agreement is better than a bad agreement.” Given that Washington’s allies in London, Paris, Berlin and Warsaw are opposed to any outcome that might end the war in Ukraine, no agreement may be preferable. But for President Trump, there is no point in equating the illusion of peace in Ukraine with a meaningless ceasefire that settles nothing.

Today, Ukraine is mired in corruption, starting at the very highest levels of the administration in Kyiv. Sending $175 billion of borrowed money there "for however long it takes" has turned out to be worse than reckless. The U.S. national sovereign debt is surging to nearly $38 trillion and rising by $425 billion with each passing month. President Trump needs to turn his attention away from funding Joe Biden’s wars and instead focus on the faltering American economy.

keep readingShow less

LATEST

QIOSK

Newsletter

Subscribe now to our weekly round-up and don't miss a beat with your favorite RS contributors and reporters, as well as staff analysis, opinion, and news promoting a positive, non-partisan vision of U.S. foreign policy.