The United States is withholding Sudanese Armed Forces chief General Abdel Fattah al-Burhan’s visa for the upcoming United Nations General Assembly in New York. Reuters directly links the move to his resistance against a proposed 90-day ceasefire. According to a Sudanese source who spoke with Reuters, no formal denial notice had arrived as diplomatic friction intensified over the stalemated civil conflict.
Visa Stalled Over Truce Resistance
Washington’s stance follows a May 2025 determination by the U.S. State Department that Sudan’s government used chemical weapons in 2024, prompting targeted sanctions.
While the Sudanese Armed Forces denied the accusation, the finding remains part of a broader framework of international scrutiny that has complicated diplomatic normalization for Burhan’s administration.
Hardline Stances and Stalled Negotiations
Burhan’s public positions have further hardened international skepticism. In January, he stated there would be “no peace until the RSF is eliminated,” adding that elimination could mean surrender rather than death.
This demand for capitulation stands in sharp contrast to the U.S.-backed truce proposals currently on the table. It reinforces concerns that military leadership views negotiations as a path to total victory rather than a compromise.
Islamist Alliances and Foreign Backers
Washington’s reservations are compounded by the military’s battlefield alliances. Treasury sanctioned the Al-Baraa Bin Malik Brigade, highlighting its substantial battlefield contributions, Iranian support, and active obstruction of peace efforts.
Reuters reporting has documented how Sudan’s Islamist networks have deployed fighters directly alongside regular army units while positioning themselves for a political resurgence, alarming international observers monitoring the country’s democratic transition prospects.
At the same time, regional patrons continue to play a complex role in sustaining the military apparatus. Reuters identifies Egypt, Türkiye, and Saudi Arabia as backers of the army, though the nature of their support varies.
Egyptian involvement encompasses political, logistical, and technical backing. Türkiye has supplied drones deployed by the military, and Saudi Arabia has provided political and other support.
Clashing Visions for Sudan’s Political Future
The diplomatic friction in Washington runs parallel to sharp disagreements over Sudan’s domestic political future. The United States has laid out strict conditions for any political dialogue, insisting that talks must be civilian-led, inclusive, and held in a mutually agreed-upon location.
A U.S. State Department spokesperson emphasized that Washington is prepared to work with international partners to support a genuine process incorporating displaced persons and refugees.
This position directly challenges Burhan’s domestic dialogue initiative, which was organized through an independent national group and designed to take place inside Sudan under military oversight.
While Burhan promised legal, political, and security guarantees for participants, civilian groups and international observers have expressed deep skepticism. Opponents argue that a process conducted under the authority of one warring party risks assembling pro-army figures into a controlled political structure while excluding major anti-war factions and reinforcing military rule.
Worth a look
