Deep Dive: Sudan's Ceasefire Negotiations Questioned Over Muslim Brotherhood's Role in Future Settlement

Sudan's ongoing civil war, pitting the Sudanese Armed Forces against the Rapid Support Forces, has created a complex web of internal and external actors influencing ceasefire prospects. The Muslim Brotherhood's potential role in future settlements taps into decades of Islamist influence in Sudanese politics, dating back to the 1989 coup led by Omar al-Bashir, who maintained ties with the group. From a geopolitical lens, regional powers like Egypt, Saudi Arabia, and the UAE hold divergent views: Cairo wary of Brotherhood expansion, while Gulf states seek to counter Iranian influence through stabilizing Sudan. The Jeddah talks, mediated by the US and Saudi Arabia, exemplify how external diplomacy intersects with local factionalism. Culturally and historically, the Brotherhood represents a transnational Islamist ideology that has permeated Sudan's political Islam since the 1940s, blending with local Sufi traditions and fueling groups like the National Congress Party. Their presence complicates settlements because they symbolize ideological continuity for some factions, yet evoke fears of renewed authoritarianism or theocracy among others. Key actors include SAF leader Abdel Fattah al-Burhan, who has distanced himself from Bashir-era Islamists, and RSF commander Mohamed Hamdan Dagalo (Hemedti), backed by UAE interests wary of Brotherhood dominance. This nuance explains why ceasefire holds are fragile, as power-sharing must balance military, tribal, and ideological interests. Cross-border implications ripple through the Horn of Africa and beyond: Ethiopia faces refugee influxes straining border regions, while Egypt worries about Nile water security if instability persists. Humanitarian crises affect 25 million Sudanese needing aid, with spillovers into Chad and South Sudan exacerbating famine risks. Globally, prolonged conflict disrupts Red Sea shipping and gold trade, impacting European energy prices and Chinese investments in Sudanese ports. Outlook remains uncertain; excluding the Brotherhood might unify secular factions but alienate Islamist militias, prolonging war, while inclusion risks alienating Western mediators pushing for democratic transitions. Strategically, the Brotherhood's fate tests the post-Arab Spring realignment, where Gulf normalization with Israel sidelines traditional Islamists. For Sudan, this could mean a technocratic government if Brotherhood influence wanes, or renewed hybrid regime if they embed in civilian structures. Regional intelligence points to Qatar's quiet support for Brotherhood networks, contrasting Saudi pushback, underscoring proxy dynamics in Africa's largest country by area.