KHARTOUM — Sudanese sources have challenged the official narrative of the Sudanese Armed Forces (SAF) regarding the Sudan Founding Alliance (TASIS) withdrawal from a United States-backed peace framework, claiming the move was largely a political effort to manage public perception after the military leadership had broadly accepted key elements of the American proposal.
The dispute has added another layer of complexity to ongoing diplomatic efforts aimed at ending Sudan’s prolonged conflict, which has created one of the world’s largest humanitarian crises and destabilized the wider region.
According to Sudanese sources familiar with the discussions, TASIS’s decision to distance itself from the U.S. initiative should not be interpreted as a complete rejection of the peace framework. Instead, they argue that the withdrawal was a calculated political move designed to avoid appearing aligned with a process that had gained support from the SAF leadership.
The sources described the move as an attempt to “save face” after the SAF publicly expressed openness toward the American proposal, suggesting that disagreements over the details of the initiative were being used as part of a broader political strategy.
The SAF, however, has maintained that its position reflects concerns over the structure and conditions of the proposed agreement. Military officials have argued that any peace process must address security issues, the future of armed groups, and guarantees for Sudan’s sovereignty and stability.
The disagreement highlights the growing divisions among Sudanese political forces over how to end the conflict between the SAF and the Rapid Support Forces (RSF), which began in April 2023. Since the outbreak of fighting, millions of Sudanese civilians have been displaced, while widespread hunger, disease, and destruction of infrastructure have intensified the humanitarian emergency.
TASIS, a coalition involving various Sudanese political and civilian actors, has positioned itself as part of efforts seeking a political solution and a future transition away from military rule. The alliance has participated in discussions focused on restoring civilian governance and addressing the country’s long-term political crisis.
International mediators, including the United States and regional partners, have continued efforts to bring Sudan’s rival factions toward negotiations. Diplomatic initiatives have focused on securing a ceasefire, expanding humanitarian access, and creating a pathway toward a political settlement.
However, major disagreements remain over several key issues, including power-sharing arrangements, security sector reform, the integration of armed forces, accountability for wartime abuses, and the role of civilian institutions in Sudan’s future government.
Analysts say the dispute over TASIS’s withdrawal reflects the broader struggle among Sudanese actors competing to shape the country’s political future. While international efforts continue, the lack of trust between military, political, and civilian groups remains one of the biggest obstacles to achieving a lasting peace agreement.
The latest developments demonstrate that Sudan’s conflict is not only a military confrontation between the SAF and RSF but also a wider political struggle over legitimacy, governance, and the direction of the country after years of instability.
