How Iran-Israel war reshapes Sudan’s fragile frontlines
As Gulf states reel from Iranian reprisals, Sudan’s three year conflict may either gain renewed international attention or slip further into neglect — a precarious balance with implications for Red Sea security and global trade routes. Sudan’s three-year-old war may have been fuelled by some players in the Gulf. But now that those countries are facing a local crisis from attacks from Iran, it may be a blessing in disguise for Sudan or something worse. Some analysts say that a war there could push international and regional actors to intensify efforts to end Sudan’s conflict, in order to prevent instability from spreading across a region stretching from the Gulf to the Red Sea and the Horn of Africa, all of which are important maritime routes. Gulf countries such as Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates and Qatar have been closely involved in peace bids in Sudan. They have also been accused of using Sudan as a proxy war. But now they have been receiving bombardments from Iran as it retaliates against US and Israel attacks. Iran itself was accused of fanning the war by providing some kind of support to the military junta. “Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, and Qatar have all attempted to support conflict mitigation and humanitarian aid in Sudan’s deadly conflict, but these efforts have been overshadowed by increasing Gulf competition and power projection in Sudan’s war as Gulf states seek to deepen their influence in the Red Sea and Horn of Africa,” argued Anna L Jacobs at the Arab Gulf States Institute. She wrote the analysis just two days before the US and Israel launched attacks on Iran. But she argued that in spite of divergent interests, Saudi Arabia and the UAE are now directly involved in the mediation process. Read: Israel and US launch strikes on Iran It is unclear how the peace process could go now given President Donald Trump promised a peace deal soon on Sudan. Now he is preoccupied with Iran. In an interconnected world, major powers rarely treat conflicts in isolation. Instead, they are viewed through the broader lens of regional security and economic stability. For Sudan, its immediate fear is how to navigate the economic impact of the Gulf war. Sudan’s Finance Minister Gibril Ibrahim warned of the imminent harsh economic impact from the disrupted supply chains of oil from the Strait of Hormuz. Sudan and Somalia are the main source of beef and mutton eaten in Gulf states. A war could disrupt that. Since fighting erupted between the Sudanese Armed Forces (SAF) and the Rapid Support Forces (RSF), attempts to broker a ceasefire and launch a comprehensive political process have repeatedly stalled. Despite multiple regional and international mediation efforts, no initiative has managed to produce a lasting breakthrough. Over the past two years, several rounds of talks and diplomatic initiatives have been launched, but fighting and deep mistrust between the warring parties have undermined progress. Political divisions within Sudan and differing regional positions on the conflict, have also complicated efforts to move toward a negotiated settlement. Meanwhile, the war has created one of the world’s most severe humanitarian crises, displacing over 15 million people and killing over 60,000. A war in the Gulf would represent a major strategic shock to the international system. The region plays a central role in global energy markets and international trade routes. Any disruption in the Gulf would immediately affect oil supplies and economic stability worldwide. “The US-Israel war on Iran — and Tehran’s reprisal attacks on Gulf powers — threaten to pull the region’s attention, capital, and political bandwidth back home,” argued Yinka Adegoke, Editor of Semafor Africa. “As missiles strike cities long assumed to be safe, sovereign wealth funds that have been pouring money into African renewable grids, ports, and startups may soon redirect toward immediate domestic priorities.” However, it is also true that in crises, major powers often try to reduce the number of open crises elsewhere. Diplomatic attention may shift toward containing conflicts that risk contributing to wider instability. Sudan’s war could therefore become a priority for renewed diplomatic pressure aimed at achieving at least a ceasefire. When tensions escalate in a strategic region, stability in neighboring areas becomes more important. Preventing additional sources of instability becomes part of a broader effort to manage regional security risks. Sudan’s location along the Red Sea gives the conflict additional strategic significance. The Red Sea is a vital corridor linking the Gulf with the Suez Canal and the Mediterranean. It is one of the world’s most important maritime routes for global trade and energy shipments. If tensions escalate in the Gulf, stability along the western shores of the Red Sea may become even more important for international actors. In that context, the continuation of Sudan’s war could be seen as another source of instability in a sensitive geopolitical corridor. This dynamic could increase international pressure to push the Sudanese conflict toward a negotiated settlement not only for humanitarian reasons, but also as part of broader regional security considerations. The Sudan war has also been shaped by complex regional dynamics. While some Gulf states have supported mediation efforts and hosted negotiations, analysts say the conflict has been influenced by wider regional rivalries. Various political reports and diplomatic assessments have suggested that external actors have provided different forms of political or economic support to the warring sides. Such involvement has complicated the balance of power and contributed to prolonging the conflict. As long as competing external interests remain in play, each side in the war may continue to believe it can gain an advantage on the battlefield rather than through compromise. However, a broader crisis in the Gulf could alter these calculations. In times of regional tension, governments often seek to limit the number of ongoing conflicts in their strategic environment, especially those affecting Red Sea security. Read: Why foreign wars hurt Horn of Africa Sudan has long been important to Gulf countries, both because of economic ties and because of its strategic location on the Red Sea. Several Gulf states have also been involved in diplomatic efforts aimed at facilitating dialogue between Sudanese parties. If tensions in the Gulf escalate further, these states may have stronger incentives to support a political settlement in Sudan. Stabilising the country could help reduce risks in the wider Red Sea region. Sudan’s stability is therefore not only a domestic issue. But also, it is closely linked to broader regional security. Under such circumstances, Sudan’s warring parties could face stronger international and regional pressure to accept a ceasefire and engage in meaningful negotiations. Historically, diplomatic pressure tends to increase when major powers view a local conflict as contributing to wider regional instability. A Gulf war could therefore trigger renewed international efforts to push Sudan toward de-escalation. However, the effectiveness of such pressure ultimately depends on the willingness of Sudan’s leaders themselves to move from military confrontation toward political compromise. Additional reporting by Aggrey Mutambo.
Ladun Liadi -
