A study published by Veracity Papers argues that regional support for Sudan’s army risks prolonging the war and obstructing a political settlement by reducing pressure on its leadership to compromise.
The analysis examines the roles of Egypt, Türkiye, Iran, Saudi Arabia and Qatar, arguing that their relationships with the army—although different in scope and character—can give military leaders additional resources and diplomatic room to postpone concessions.
Its central warning is that support presented as a means of preserving Sudan’s state institutions may instead reinforce the political authority of its generals. The study draws a distinction between protecting a national military institution and endorsing its commanders’ continued involvement in government.
Different Forms of Support, Shared Political Risks
Stay ahead of the geopolitical week.
MD Briefing delivers expert analysis across five global fronts — the Indo-Pacific, energy, geoeconomics, European security, and the Middle East — every Monday morning. Free.
Drawing on reporting by the International Crisis Group and Middle East Eye, the study discusses military assistance involving Egypt, Türkiye and Iran. It examines Saudi Arabia and Qatar primarily through their political and diplomatic relationships with the army leadership, rather than claiming that the five countries provide identical forms of support.
The analysis argues that continued access to external assistance can weaken incentives for negotiation when commanders believe further battlefield gains will improve their bargaining position. It also warns that a diverse network of external partners can dilute the effectiveness of pressure from any single government. The International Crisis Group identifies external patronage and the army’s range of foreign relationships as important factors shaping these calculations.
Egypt’s preference for a significant military role in a future transition receives particular scrutiny. The study also questions whether Saudi Arabia’s mediation efforts can deliver a civilian-led settlement if preserving the army’s political influence remains an important consideration. The International Crisis Group discusses both countries’ preferences concerning the military’s transitional role.
On Qatar, the analysis calls for diplomatic relationships to be assessed by the commitments they secure, rather than by continued access to military leaders alone.
Calls for Conditions on External Support
The study recommends linking external assistance and diplomatic engagement to verifiable steps towards ending hostilities, facilitating humanitarian access, accepting a civilian political process and allowing accountability for abuses.
It concludes that accountability, rather than unconditional backing, should guide regional engagement with Sudan’s army.
The analysis does not argue that the five countries share a coordinated strategy. Instead, it warns that differing policies can produce a similar outcome: giving the military leadership more time and political space to delay a settlement.
Its concluding argument is that preserving Sudan’s institutions requires placing armed forces under accountable public authority—not treating military dominance as a prerequisite for stability.
