There are tentative signs of progress in Sudan’s catastrophic civil war. After more than a year of relentless bloodshed, famine, and displacement, the international community appears to be coalescing around a renewed effort to bring the warring factions to the negotiating table. It’s an effort borne not just of diplomatic duty, but of growing alarm: upwards of 150,000 people are believed to have died; millions have been forced into exile or face starvation. Sudan’s state institutions have collapsed. The country itself teeters on the edge of complete disintegration.

Since late June, a flurry of multilateral activity has taken place. The United Nations Security Council convened both public briefings and closed-door sessions. The European Union brought together the African Union, the Intergovernmental Authority on Development (IGAD), the Arab League, and the United Nations, along with their respective chairing nations—Angola, Djibouti, and Iraq—as well as key states backing peace initiatives. Notably, U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio is set to meet in Washington with the foreign ministers of four Arab nations, signaling a higher-level push from the United States. As U.S. Africa adviser Massad Boulos has noted, this moment presents a rare alignment of international interests.

The war, which erupted in 2023, began when General Abdel Fattah al-Burhan attempted to consolidate control by subordinating the Rapid Support Forces (RSF) under the authority of the Sudanese Armed Forces (SAF). What followed was a violent rupture of a military alliance that devolved into an all-out civil war. For months, the conflict seemed impervious to outside pressure, grinding on amid widespread apathy. But the sheer scale of humanitarian devastation has made further indifference untenable. This is no longer a contained regional crisis—it’s one of the worst man-made catastrophes in recent memory.

Yet geopolitics may be shifting in ways that favor diplomacy. In the past three weeks, U.S. and Israeli strikes on Iranian nuclear and drone-manufacturing sites have dealt a blow to Iran’s regional ambitions. That includes the destabilization of Tehran’s ability to arm and support its proxies, notably General Burhan’s faction. Iran’s diminished capacity raises real doubts about whether it can continue underwriting the SAF’s campaign to create an Islamist state in Sudan. For Burhan and his Muslim Brotherhood-aligned backers, the prospect of an endless supply chain of arms and funding is suddenly uncertain.

This new reality creates an opening—for Sudan, certainly, but also for Donald Trump. His aspirations for a Nobel Peace Prize once centered on Ukraine. That path has dimmed. Gaza remains intractable. Sudan, for all its complexity, may now represent Trump’s most viable foreign policy opportunity. Even a ceasefire, however limited, would offer political dividends and humanitarian relief.

There are signs the RSF is prepared to negotiate. Ahead of recent peace efforts in Geneva—where the SAF conspicuously failed to appear—the RSF expressed a willingness to engage. Burhan, by contrast, faces deeper internal resistance. His own coalition is fractured, riven with factional disputes over power-sharing and a deep-seated ideological drive to crush opposition, both armed and civilian. For years, the SAF and its allies have pursued the dream of an Islamic republic. Dialogue is not their instinct—it is anathema.

Even so, Burhan would do well to embrace this fragile moment. His government is already struggling with internal fragmentation: key ministries remain hotly contested, and no viable governing structure has emerged. A ceasefire could at least buy time to stabilize the political terrain and avert further humanitarian collapse.

One constant remains: any sustainable peace in Sudan will require U.S. muscle. That means revisiting the Trump administration’s abrupt shuttering of USAID operations in February—a decision that, as The Washington Post recently reported, had especially lethal consequences for Sudanese civilians. Resuming U.S. humanitarian aid could save thousands of lives almost immediately.

But above all, peace depends on reducing the flow of weapons into the conflict. That will require complex diplomacy and trade-offs among regional players. Iran, at least for now, may be more vulnerable to pressure than it has been in years. Trump’s recent, glittering Gulf tour underscored at least one hopeful reality: there is a shared interest among Arab states—and between them and Washington—to address the region’s flashpoints collaboratively.

Sudan is one of them. The path to peace is narrow and fraught. But it exists.