By Habib Al-Badawi
Introduction: From Shadow Diplomacy to Historic Breakthrough
The escalating conflagration in Sudan has commanded international attention since April 2023, when a power struggle between the Sudanese Armed Forces (SAF) and the Rapid Support Forces (RSF) erupted into full-scale civil war. Yet the emergence of Massad Boulos as U.S. Senior Advisor for Africa and chief mediator represents a profound departure from conventional diplomatic practice.
What began as discreet backchannel negotiations has culminated in a potentially transformative development: on February 3, 2026, Boulos announced that the Quad mechanism—comprising the United States, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, and the United Arab Emirates—has reached a comprehensive peace document that both warring parties have tentatively accepted.
Operating with deliberate circumvention of traditional foreign policy architectures, Boulos embodies an increasingly sophisticated form of backchannel negotiation that illuminates Washington’s evolving strategic doctrines across Africa and the Middle East.
His clandestine engagements with Sudan’s rival military commanders, augmented by strategic consultations in Cairo, Riyadh, and Abu Dhabi, reveal how the Trump administration endeavors to harness unconventional diplomatic assets to manage crises that simultaneously threaten regional equilibrium and imperil core American strategic imperatives.
This comprehensive analysis positions the ‘Boulos factor’ within the broader tapestry of contemporary geopolitical transformation, where Sudan’s internal warfare intersects with Egypt’s profound security anxieties, Libya’s protracted institutional collapse, and the grand strategic calculations of global powers vying for ascendancy across Africa’s emerging power centers.
The crisis has already claimed over 150,000 lives, displaced nearly 12 million people (including 4.5 million refugees to neighboring countries), and created what the United Nations describes as ‘the world’s worst humanitarian crisis,’ with 21-30 million people requiring emergency assistance and 7 million facing famine.
Far from constituting merely a localized humanitarian catastrophe, Sudan’s trajectory carries transformative implications for the delicate balance of influence across the Horn of Africa, the strategically vital Red Sea maritime corridor, and the evolving ‘New Middle East’ paradigm that has captivated policymakers from Washington to regional capitals throughout the broader Mediterranean and Arabian Peninsula.
The calculated opacity surrounding these diplomatic initiatives raises fundamental questions about the nature and efficacy of contemporary international engagement—questions that may soon be answered as the peace process enters its most critical phase.
The Architecture of Shadow Diplomacy
The Paradigm of the Unconventional Envoy
Massad Boulos emerges as a compelling exemplar of contemporary diplomatic innovation, representing a carefully calculated departure from traditional diplomatic practice. Unlike career foreign service officers constrained by institutional protocols, bureaucratic hierarchies, and public accountability mechanisms, Boulos operates within a distinctive sphere of influence that seamlessly integrates personal relationships, commercial expertise, and political connectivity across multiple strategic domains.
His Lebanese-American heritage provides cultural fluency and regional credibility, while extensive business networks throughout West Africa—particularly through his family’s Nigeria-based operations—offer practical knowledge of local power dynamics and economic structures. Most crucially, his intimate familial connections to the Trump administration (as father-in-law to Tiffany Trump) create unique access and authority that would be impossible to replicate through conventional diplomatic channels.
The strategic selection of Boulos as an unofficial envoy reveals sophisticated analytical thinking within the Trump administration’s foreign policy apparatus. His documented meetings with Sudan’s competing military leadership exemplify this nuanced approach to conflict engagement. The extensively reported three-hour session with General Abdel Fattah al-Burhan in Geneva, followed by subsequent meetings in Riyadh on December 15, 2025, and through January 2026, created opportunities for both sides to explore potential agreement frameworks without the constraining pressure of media scrutiny.
Similarly, the deliberate discretion surrounding engagements with RSF leader Mohamed Hamdan Dagalo demonstrates how backchannel diplomacy can facilitate meaningful communication between parties who might find direct, publicly acknowledged engagement politically untenable.
By early 2026, these patient, methodical negotiations had progressed from exploratory discussions to concrete proposals. Boulos’s regional tour in January 2026—meeting with Saudi Defense Minister Prince Khalid bin Salman and Foreign Minister Prince Faisal bin Farhan in Riyadh on January 6, UAE President Mohamed bin Zayed Al Nahyan in Abu Dhabi on January 8, and Egyptian President Abdel Fattah el-Sisi in Cairo on January 14—demonstrated the sophisticated coordination required to align divergent regional interests behind a unified peace framework.
The February 3, 2026, Breakthrough: The Quad Peace Document
On February 3, 2026, speaking at a humanitarian aid conference at the newly renamed Donald J. Trump Institute for Peace in Washington, Boulos announced a historic development: the Quad has reached a final peace document for Sudan that is acceptable to both parties to the conflict. This announcement, made alongside UN Emergency Relief Coordinator Tom Fletcher, represents the culmination of months of intensive shuttle diplomacy and marks a potential turning point in one of the world’s most devastating contemporary conflicts.
The peace plan is structured around five interconnected pillars:
- Addressing the humanitarian crisis: Immediate and sustained delivery of emergency assistance to the 30 million people in need, with particular focus on the seven million facing famine conditions in Darfur and Kordofan.
- Instituting a political process toward a civilian-led government: With the UK, Norway, and Egypt specifically designated to work on government transition processes, ensuring Sudan’s return to democratic governance.
- Protecting civilians and coordinating their safe return: Establishing secure corridors and protection mechanisms for the nearly 12 million displaced persons, including a framework for voluntary return once security conditions permit.
- Reconstruction and development: Establishing dedicated funding mechanisms for post-conflict rebuilding, infrastructure development, and economic recovery.
- Transitioning to a permanent ceasefire: Beginning with a three-month humanitarian truce, leading to comprehensive demilitarization and integration of armed forces under a unified command structure.
Boulos stated that both the SAF and RSF have tentatively accepted the UN initiatives and the Quad’s framework, and that detailed plans for military withdrawals from some Sudanese cities for humanitarian purposes are being finalized. The target timeline calls for implementation to begin by March 2026, with visible progress expected by the start of Ramadan (February 18, 2026).
The Board of Peace: A New Paradigm for Global Conflict Resolution
In a significant innovation that has generated both enthusiasm and controversy, Boulos announced that once the Sudan peace agreement is finalized, it will be presented not only to the UN Security Council but also to President Trump’s newly established Board of Peace. Formally chartered at the World Economic Forum in Davos on January 22, 2026, this international body was originally conceived to oversee Gaza’s reconstruction but has since expanded its mandate to address global conflicts.
‘The Board of Peace is very much interested in this process. They’re very much interested in what you’re doing and looking forward to providing considerable support,’ Boulos explained at the February 3 conference. ‘Let’s say they’re equal [to the UN]. Let’s put it this way. They’re complementary.’ This dual-track approach—simultaneous engagement with both the UN and the Board of Peace—reflects the Trump administration’s strategy of leveraging multiple institutional frameworks to build momentum for peace initiatives.
The Board of Peace, chaired by President Trump, has approximately two dozen member states, though notably absent are major European allies such as France, Germany, and the UK. The board’s charter—which makes no specific reference to Gaza despite its origins—describes it as ‘an international organization that seeks to promote stability, restore dependable and lawful governance, and secure enduring peace in areas affected or threatened by conflict. ‘Critics have questioned its $1 billion membership fee for permanent seats and its potential to duplicate or undermine UN mechanisms. Supporters argue it provides a more agile, results-oriented alternative to traditional multilateral institutions.
Humanitarian Aid Mobilization: The $1.5 Billion Initiative
Concurrently with the peace process, Boulos spearheaded a major humanitarian fundraising initiative at the February 3 conference. The United States pledged $200 million in new assistance, while the United Arab Emirates committed an unprecedented $500 million to the UN Sudan Humanitarian Fund. The total mobilization target of $1.5 billion represents recognition of the massive scale of Sudan’s humanitarian catastrophe.
UN Emergency Relief Coordinator Tom Fletcher emphasized the urgency: ‘Sudan is now the world’s most severe humanitarian emergency. We have had too many days of famine, of brutal atrocities, of lives uprooted and destroyed. ‘ He set a concrete target of reaching 14 million people this year with life-saving support—food, medicine, water, sanitation, and protection services—with visible progress expected by Ramadan’s commencement.
The humanitarian dimensions are staggering: According to UN agencies, 21-30 million people require emergency assistance, 7 million face famine conditions (with famine already confirmed in Kadugli and other besieged areas), nearly 12 million have been displaced (7 million internally, 4.5 million as refugees), and over 150,000 people have been killed since April 2023. The crisis has generated what Fletcher described as ‘the world’s largest displacement and hunger crisis,’ surpassing even the emergencies in Gaza, Yemen, and Ukraine.
The Evolving Military Landscape: February 2026
Shifting Battlefield Momentum
The military situation on the ground has evolved significantly since the conflict erupted in April 2023, with both parties experiencing periods of advance and setbacks. Understanding these dynamics is crucial to assessing the viability of the proposed peace framework.
SAF Territorial Gains: In March 2025, the Sudanese Armed Forces recaptured Khartoum after nearly two years of RSF occupation, forcing the paramilitaries to retreat westward. This represented a major strategic victory that allowed the government to officially announce on January 11, 2026, the return of national institutions to the capital.
Most recently, in late January 2026, SAF forces broke the nearly two-year RSF siege of Dilling in South Kordofan, reopening critical supply routes to the besieged state capital of Kadugli, where famine conditions had been confirmed by UN assessments. Military analysts describe these advances as potentially signaling a shift in battlefield momentum favoring the national army.
RSF Consolidation in Darfur: Conversely, the Rapid Support Forces have achieved near-total control over Sudan’s vast Darfur region. After a brutal 500-plus-day siege, RSF forces captured El Fasher, the capital of North Darfur and the military’s last major stronghold in the region, in late October 2025. The assault involved depopulating the city through starvation tactics and mass atrocities that UN investigators have characterized as potential crimes against humanity. The RSF now controls all five Darfur states, though some northern areas near the Chad border remain contested.
The Battle for Kordofan: The conflict’s newest and potentially most decisive theater is the Kordofan region, where the RSF has intensified operations aimed at capturing El Obeid, North Kordofan’s capital and a strategic gateway to Khartoum. Multiple drones strikes on El Obeid in late January, and early February 2026 have killed dozens of civilians and damaged critical infrastructure. Should El Obeid fall, RSF forces would be positioned to threaten Khartoum from the west once again. As of early February, the city remains under siege but under SAF control, with fierce fighting ongoing in surrounding areas.
Eastern Front Developments: In the Blue Nile region of southeastern Sudan, RSF forces allied with the Sudan People’s Liberation Movement-North (SPLM-N) captured the strategic town of Deim Mansour on February 3, 2026. Sudanese officials accused Ethiopia of facilitating these attacks by allowing forces to mass in the Benishangul-Gumuz region and providing operational support, including drone bases allegedly overseen by the UAE.
Regional Power Dynamics and External Support
The Sudan conflict has increasingly become a proxy battlefield for competing regional powers, each pursuing distinct strategic objectives:
Egypt’s Existential Stakes: In his January 14, 2026, meeting with Boulos, Egyptian President Sisi characterized Sudan’s security as an ‘existential’ issue for Egypt, citing the ‘organic link’ between the two nations’ national security. Cairo has provided extensive military support to the SAF and, according to recent reports, has operated an airbase on the Sudan border for at least six months, conducting airstrikes against RSF positions and convoys. Egypt’s concerns are multifaceted: the arrival of at least 1.5 million Sudanese refugees since April 2023, threats to Nile water security from potential upstream instability, and fears that RSF control of border regions could facilitate militant infiltration into Egyptian territory.
UAE’s Strategic Calculations: The United Arab Emirates’ support for the RSF has been a persistent source of tension within the Quad mechanism. Despite Abu Dhabi’s $500 million humanitarian pledge and official participation in peace efforts, intelligence reports and investigative journalism continue to document UAE provision of drones, weapons, and logistical support to RSF forces.
The UAE’s interests in Sudan include securing Red Sea access points, countering Islamist influence (historically associated with the SAF), and maintaining strategic depth in the Horn of Africa. UAE President Mohamed bin Zayed’s January 8, 2026, meeting with Boulos emphasized ‘the urgency of de-escalation to alleviate civilian suffering,’ though questions persist about Abu Dhabi’s continued material support for the paramilitaries.
Saudi Arabia’s Shifting Posture: Initially attempting to present itself as a neutral mediator, Saudi Arabia has increasingly tilted toward supporting the SAF, particularly following Riyadh’s reversal of Emirati gains in Yemen in late 2025 and early 2026. The kingdom’s Vision 2030 development agenda depends heavily on Red Sea stability and security of maritime commerce routes.
Saudi officials view the SAF as possessing institutional legitimacy and governing capacity that the RSF lacks. Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman’s meetings with both General al-Burhan (December 15, 2025, and subsequent engagements) and U.S. envoys signal Riyadh’s determination to leverage its enhanced regional credibility to counter UAE influence and promote an SAF-favorable settlement.
Turkey’s Opportunistic Engagement: Turkey has expanded its footprint in Sudan through both diplomatic channels and weapons sales. Turkish firms, reportedly violating U.S. and EU sanctions, have sold military equipment to both the SAF and RSF, reflecting Ankara’s strategy of leveraging military, commercial, and ideological influence across Africa while hedging between competing factions.
Ethiopia’s Border Complications: Sudanese military intelligence reports Ethiopian facilitation of RSF and SPLM-N movements across the Blue Nile border, including alleged provision of drone bases in the Benishangul-Gumuz region. Addis Ababa’s motivations may include leverage over Nile water disputes and broader regional competition.
Strategic Objectives Beyond Immediate Peace
Washington’s deployment of Boulos as chief mediator serves multiple interconnected strategic objectives that extend considerably beyond the immediate humanitarian imperative of ending Sudan’s devastating conflict. The administration’s broader ‘New Middle East’ strategy requires sustained stability across key transportation corridors and reliable partnerships with regional powers, making Sudan’s ongoing warfare a significant impediment to larger geopolitical designs.
Red Sea Maritime Security: Prolonged conflict in Sudan threatens to destabilize critical Red Sea shipping lanes that connect Asian and European markets, carrying approximately 12% of global trade and 30% of global container traffic. The strategic Port Sudan facility, Sudan’s primary maritime gateway, has remained operational under SAF control but faces persistent threats from RSF advances. American and allied naval operations depend on stable coastal access, making Sudan’s Red Sea littoral zone of vital strategic importance.
Countering Rival Power Projection: The conflict creates exploitable opportunities for rival global powers to expand strategic influence. Russian private military companies (transitioning from Wagner Group to Africa Corps) have maintained a presence in Sudan despite the chaos, while Chinese economic interests in Sudanese infrastructure projects remain substantial. A peace settlement favorable to American interests would limit these competitors’ freedom of maneuver in a strategically significant region.
Regional Stability Architecture: Sudan’s collapse would have cascading effects throughout the Horn of Africa, potentially destabilizing Ethiopia (already managing internal conflicts), threatening South Sudan’s fragile peace (with reports of South Sudanese fighters captured alongside RSF forces), and overwhelming neighboring states like Chad with additional refugee flows (Chad already hosts over 880,000 Sudanese refugees). A successful peace process would demonstrate American capacity for crisis resolution and strengthen partnerships with Egypt, Saudi Arabia, and the UAE.
Economic Integration and Development: Sudan possesses significant natural resources, including gold, agricultural potential, and strategic geography. Boulos has been instrumental in advancing the U.S.-backed Lobito Corridor project linking Central African mineral resources to Atlantic ports. A stable Sudan could integrate into broader continental development frameworks, creating opportunities for American commercial engagement and reducing dependency on Chinese infrastructure investment.
Coordinated Pressure and Diplomatic Leverage
The timing and sequencing of diplomatic initiatives and coercive measures reveal sophisticated strategy. Recent implementation of comprehensive U.S. sanctions against both Sudanese military leaders, combined with formal determinations regarding chemical weapons usage and war crimes, demonstrates a carefully coordinated dual-track approach that combines sustained pressure with discrete outreach.
On February 5, 2026, the UK Foreign Secretary announced fresh sanctions targeting senior figures in both the SAF and RSF ‘who have committed atrocities across Sudan,’ along with networks procuring weapons and recruiting mercenary fighters.
The UK, holding the UN Security Council Presidency in February 2026, has pledged to use its position to ‘press for safe and unimpeded humanitarian access, accountability for atrocities, and international cooperation for a ceasefire. ‘A major UK-Germany conference on Sudan is planned for Berlin as the conflict approaches its third anniversary in April 2026.
This coordinated international pressure, combined with Boulos’s patient diplomatic engagement, reflects understanding of leverage dynamics in complex conflict mediation: economic sanctions and legal designations systematically raise the opportunity costs of continued warfare, while backchannel communications simultaneously provide face-saving pathways for strategic retreat from escalatory positions.
Challenges to Implementation: The Road Ahead
Despite the February 3, 2026, breakthrough announcement, formidable obstacles remain between tentative acceptance and actual implementation of the peace framework. Both parties have demonstrated intransigence throughout the conflict, pursuing maximalist objectives that will be difficult to reconcile through negotiated settlement.
The Ceasefire Implementation Challenge
General al-Burhan had publicly rejected the proposed three-month humanitarian truce in late November 2025, though subsequent private meetings with Boulos in December and January apparently softened this position. The RSF, while announcing agreement to mediators’ ceasefire proposals, has simultaneously intensified military operations in Kordofan and continued besieging critical population centers.
The proposed framework calls for military withdrawals from some Sudanese cities for humanitarian purposes, with the UN establishing mechanisms for troop pullbacks and civilian returns.
However, neither side has demonstrated willingness to relinquish territorial control absent ironclad security guarantees and verification mechanisms. The plan’s success depends critically on establishing credible monitoring systems that can detect violations and trigger consequences—capabilities that have proven elusive in previous ceasefire attempts.
Yale researcher Nathaniel Raymond warned in late January 2026 that with RSF forces advancing toward Khartoum from the west, ‘2026 has the potential now to be the bloodiest year in the almost three years of war.’ This assessment underscores the urgency of converting the peace framework into concrete action before battlefield dynamics render negotiated settlement impossible.
Humanitarian Access and Protection
Both parties have systematically obstructed humanitarian aid despite desperate civilian needs. The SAF has been accused of blocking aid deliveries to contested areas, while the RSF has denied access to besieged cities under its control, effectively weaponizing starvation. Human Rights Watch documented in its 2026 World Report that ‘both parties continue to willfully obstruct aid despite the population’s desperate needs and to detain and harass humanitarian workers and local volunteers. ‘
Even with a formal ceasefire, delivering assistance across Sudan’s vast territory to 30 million people in need presents extraordinary logistical challenges. As UNICEF noted, reaching a single child in Darfur can require days of negotiations, security clearances, and travel across sandy roads cutting through shifting frontlines. The February 18 Ramadan deadline for ‘visible progress’ in humanitarian access represents an ambitious target that will test the parties’ genuine commitment to the peace framework.
Political Transition to Civilian Governance
The peace framework’s fourth pillar—instituting a political process toward civilian-led government—addresses the conflict’s fundamental cause: the April 2023 breakdown of Sudan’s fragile power-sharing arrangement between military and civilian leaders. Both al-Burhan and Dagalo derive their power from military force rather than democratic legitimacy, creating inherent resistance to genuine civilian oversight.
The designation of the UK, Norway, and Egypt to work on government transition processes brings together actors with varying relationships to the warring parties and different visions of Sudan’s political future. Egypt strongly backs the SAF and views General al-Burhan as Sudan’s legitimate leader, while European partners emphasize inclusive civilian governance and accountability for war crimes. Reconciling these divergent approaches will require sophisticated diplomatic coordination.
Accountability Versus Amnesty
Both military leaders face serious legal jeopardy for alleged war crimes and crimes against humanity. The International Criminal Court continues investigations in Darfur, the UN Independent International Fact-Finding Mission has documented extensive atrocities by both sides, and national jurisdictions have imposed targeted sanctions. Yet military leaders rarely surrender power when facing prosecution—creating fundamental tension between justice and peace imperatives.
The peace framework does not explicitly address accountability mechanisms, suggesting this contentious issue may have been deliberately deferred to enable initial agreement. However, as UN High Commissioner for Human Rights Volker Türk emphasized during his January 2026 visit to Sudan, the scale of atrocities—including ethnic targeting, mass sexual violence, and deliberate starvation of civilians—demands accountability. Resolving this tension between peace and justice will likely prove to be among the most difficult challenges facing implementers.
External Actor Coordination
The Quad mechanism’s success depends on genuine alignment among members with competing interests. The UAE’s continued material support for the RSF directly undermines efforts to pressure the paramilitaries toward genuine negotiation.
Egypt’s and Saudi Arabia’s strong backing of the SAF creates mirror-image problems. Unless external sponsors genuinely commit to unified pressure on both parties—which may require the United States to press its Gulf partners harder than has occurred to date—the warring factions will continue playing external backers against each other.
Furthermore, actors outside the Quad framework—Russia, China, Ethiopia, and Turkey—pursue their own interests in Sudan and may actively undermine peace efforts if they perceive disadvantageous outcomes. Comprehensive settlement will require broader international coordination extending beyond the current Quad-plus-UN framework.
Conclusion: The Critical Juncture
The February 3, 2026, announcement of a Quad peace document accepted by both Sudanese warring parties represents a potentially transformative moment in one of the world’s most devastating contemporary conflicts.
The Boulos factor—combining backchannel flexibility, targeted coercive measures, regional coordination, and innovative institutional frameworks like the Board of Peace—has created opportunities for breakthroughs that seemed impossible just months earlier.
Yet the distance between the framework agreement and actual implementation remains vast. Both the SAF and RSF have demonstrated a ruthless willingness to inflict civilian suffering in pursuit of military advantage. Regional powers backing opposing sides have not yet demonstrated genuine commitment to unified pressure. The humanitarian catastrophe continues to worsen, with February 2026 seeing intensified fighting in Kordofan even as peace discussions advance.
The coming weeks will prove decisive. The target of visible humanitarian progress by Ramadan’s start (February 18, 2026) represents an immediate test of the parties’ willingness to translate verbal commitments into concrete action. The planned presentation of the peace framework to both the UN Security Council and the Board of Peace will reveal whether these institutional mechanisms can generate the sustained international pressure and support necessary for implementation.
The ultimate historical assessment of the Boulos factor will depend not on its tactical innovation or diplomatic creativity, but on its concrete contribution to sustainable peace and stability in Sudan. Whether current initiatives prove to be a valuable breakthrough that creates new possibilities for effective conflict resolution or simply another episode in a prolonged tragedy will depend fundamentally on the ability to translate diplomatic contacts and personal relationships into institutional arrangements capable of addressing the underlying drivers of violence that have plagued Sudan for generations.
As Sudan’s conflict approaches its third anniversary in April 2026, the stakes could not be higher. Success would demonstrate that innovative diplomatic approaches combining informal mediation, regional coordination, and new institutional frameworks can resolve complex civil wars. Failure would condemn millions to continued suffering and potentially destabilize the broader Horn of Africa and Red Sea region, with cascading effects throughout the international system.
The Boulos factor has created new possibilities and demonstrated the potential value of creative diplomatic thinking. Realizing the transformative potential of these opportunities will require the same sustained creative thinking and institutional commitment that generated the innovation itself—combined with unwavering focus on the ultimate objective: ending the suffering of the Sudanese people and building foundations for lasting peace.
References
Al Jazeera. (2026, February 3). Sudan sources say South Sudanese among captured RSF members as war rages. https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2026/1/3/sudan-sources-say-south-sudanese-among-captured-rsf-members-as-war-rages
Atlantic Council. (2026, January 24). Amid Arab competition, the war in Sudan requires a US balancing act. https://www.atlanticcouncil.org/blogs/menasource/amid-arab-competition-the-war-in-sudan-requires-a-us-balancing-act/
Foundation for Defense of Democracies. (2026, February 5). Sudanese Army Breaks Key Siege as U.S. Leads Humanitarian Aid Push. https://www.fdd.org/analysis/2026/02/05/sudanese-army-breaks-key-siege-as-u-s-leads-humanitarian-aid-push/
GlobalSecurity.org. (2026, February 3). UN Relief Chief calls for truce, protection as Sudan’s suffering deepens. https://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/news/2026/02/mil-260203-unocha02.htm
Human Rights Watch. (2026, February). World Report 2026: Sudan. https://www.hrw.org/world-report/2026/country-chapters/sudan
Middle East Eye. (2026, February 3). ‘We have a text’: US says peace plan for Sudan to be revealed this week. https://www.middleeasteye.net/news/we-have-text-us-says-peace-plan-sudan-revealed-this-week
Peoples Dispatch. (2026, February 3). As attacks intensify in Kordofan, fighting once again threatens Sudan’s capital. https://peoplesdispatch.org/2026/02/03/as-attacks-intensify-in-kordofan-fighting-once-again-threatens-sudans-capital/
Security Council Report. (2026, February). Sudan, February 2026 Monthly Forecast. https://www.securitycouncilreport.org/monthly-forecast/2026-02/sudan-38.php
Sudan Tribune. (2025, December 16). Sudan’s Burhan discusses ceasefire with U.S. Boulos in Riyadh. https://sudantribune.com/article/308255
Sudan Tribune. (2026, January 14). Sisi tells U.S. envoy Sudan security is ‘existential’ for Egypt. https://sudantribune.com/article/309349
Sudan Tribune. (2026, February 3). RSF and SPLM-N attack army’s positions in Blue Nile, capture strategic area. https://sudantribune.com/article/310223
Sudan Tribune. (2026, February 4). US advisor says Quad reaches peace deal for Sudan. https://sudantribune.com/article/310226
UK Foreign, Commonwealth & Development Office. (2026, February 5). Sudan: Foreign Secretary’s statement. https://www.gov.uk/government/speeches/sudan-foreign-secretarys-statement-5-february-2026
United Nations News. (2026, February 3). In Washington, Fletcher presses for action as Sudan war grinds on. https://news.un.org/en/story/2026/02/1166885
U.S. Department of State. (2025, September 26). Advancing Trump Administration Priorities in Sub-Saharan Africa. https://www.state.gov/briefings-foreign-press-centers/unga-2025/advancing-trump-administration-priorities-in-sub-saharan-africa
Wikipedia. (2026, February). Massad Boulos. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Massad_Boulos
Wikipedia. (2026, February 8). Board of Peace. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Board_of_Peace
