Introduction
Sudan’s foreign policy reflects its complex interplay of geographic significance, internal strife, and regional pressures. This article investigates Sudan’s diplomatic ruptures with Iran and the United Arab Emirates (UAE), alongside its shifting stance toward Israel, from the 1967 “Three Nos” to the 2020 Abraham Accords. The central thesis posits that Sudan’s diplomatic maneuvers stem from a fusion of strategic necessity, economic survival, and ideological positioning, yielding profound consequences for its domestic stability and regional relationships. This analysis aims to illuminate these dynamics, providing new insights into Sudan’s evolution of foreign policy.
Historical Context
Sudan’s foreign policy emerged following its 1956 independence, initially aligning with pan-Arabism and the broader Arab world. The 1967 Khartoum Summit, hosted by Sudan, crystallized this stance with the “Three Nos”—no peace, recognition, or negotiation with Israel—reflecting solidarity with the Palestinian cause. During the Cold War, Sudan wavered between the Western and Soviet blocs, mirroring its internal upheavals. The 2011 secession of South Sudan, which took 75% of the nation’s oil reserves, triggered an economic collapse, increasing Sudan’s dependence on Gulf states like Saudi Arabia and the UAE. This backdrop frames the subsequent diplomatic shifts analyzed herein.
Sudan-Iran Relations
Sudan’s ties with Iran emerged in the 1980s under Omar Al-Bashir’s Islamist regime, rooted in shared revolutionary ideology and military cooperation. Iran supplied weapons and training during Sudan’s civil wars, strengthening bilateral bonds. However, in 2016, Sudan severed these ties, aligning with Saudi Arabia amid a $1 billion aid package from Riyadh—a move driven by economic desperation rather than ideological divergence. The restoration of relations in 2023, amid Sudan’s ongoing civil war, reflected a pragmatic bid for Iranian drones and military support to bolster the Sudanese Armed Forces (SAF) against the Rapid Support Forces (RSF). This oscillation underscores Sudan’s strategic adaptability.
Sudan-UAE Relations
Sudan’s relationship with the UAE initially flourished, with Emirati investments in agriculture and infrastructure signaling robust economic ties. However, the 2023 outbreak of civil war fractured this partnership. Sudan accused the UAE of arming the RSF, a paramilitary group clashing with the SAF. This severance risked losing vital Gulf aid, highlighting the high stakes of Sudan’s foreign policy gambits.
Comparisons with Other Diplomatic Ruptures
Sudan’s diplomatic history offers parallels with other nations. Its 1990s rupture with the United States, following accusations of terrorism sponsorship, mirrors Iran’s severance in its economic motivations—both sought to curry favor with wealthier allies. The Saudi-Iran rivalry provides a regional lens, with Sudan’s alignments shifting to maximize Gulf support. Egypt’s 1979 normalization with Israel and Turkey’s recurring disputes with Greece over maritime boundaries further illustrate how nations leverage diplomacy against existential threats. Sudan’s selective ruptures target perceived adversaries while preserving critical alliances.
Israel’s Role in Sudan’s Foreign Policy
Sudan’s Israel policy evolved dramatically from rejection to rapprochement. The “Three Nos” of 1967 defined decades of hostility, yet economic distress and U.S. pressure prompted Sudan’s 2020 entry into the Abraham Accords. This normalization secured debt relief and removal from the U.S. terrorism list, prioritizing survival over ideology. Unlike its Iran and UAE ruptures, this shift aligned Sudan with a U.S.-led bloc, reflecting a broader recalibration of its regional posture.
Analysis of Reasons and Aftermath
Sudan’s diplomatic decisions weave together strategy, economics, and ideology. The 2016 Iran rupture traded ideological affinity for Gulf funding, while the 2023 restoration sought military leverage in a civil war. The UAE severance jeopardized economic lifelines. Internally, these moves exacerbated factionalism, with the SAF and RSF exploiting foreign ties to fuel conflict. Regionally, Sudan’s actions reshaped alliances, straining Gulf unity and complicating Horn of Africa dynamics. Each rupture reveals a nation balancing short-term gains against long-term risks.
Conclusion
Sudan’s diplomatic ruptures encapsulate a state in perpetual crisis, navigating survival through pragmatic yet perilous shifts. While securing immediate benefits like aid or military support, these decisions deepen internal divisions and regional isolation. As Sudan’s civil war persists, its foreign policy remains a calculated risk, with implications that ripple beyond its borders. This analysis underscores the need for a nuanced understanding of Sudan’s strategic choices in an unstable geopolitical landscape.
