Resetting Sudanese Diplomacy: Turning Opportunity into Negotiating Power

Yousif Majid Yousif Yahya

Sudan stands at a pivotal moment. Recent statements issued by the Trump campaign have created a rare diplomatic opening — an opening that could reshape Sudan’s relationship with the United States if it is handled with discipline, clarity and strategic vision. Opportunities like this do not arise often, and in Sudan’s case, every missed opportunity has carried heavy consequences for the country’s future. To avoid repeating old mistakes, Sudan must prepare not only for external engagement with the United States, but also for building internal coherence among political, institutional and societal actors. Without such coherence, even the most favourable geopolitical moment will slip away.

Political science provides an important framework for understanding the value of internal alignment. Robert Putnam’s “two-level game” theory explains that international negotiations are never purely external; they are simultaneously internal negotiations among domestic actors. A state suffering from internal division is inherently weak internationally because external powers perceive uncertainty and see opportunities for exploitation. By contrast, a unified state — or one that at least agrees on its core priorities — negotiates from a position of strength.

Morocco offers a useful comparison: despite internal complexities, the monarchy, economic ministries and security institutions share a unified foreign policy vision. This coherence enabled Morocco to negotiate a free-trade agreement with the United States from a position of strategic strength, attracting investment and international recognition while preserving state sovereignty. Sudan can draw important lessons from this model: coherence is not a luxury, but a prerequisite for any successful negotiation.

Game theory adds a second layer of strategic understanding. It explains how rational actors behave in environments where each party’s outcomes depend on others’ choices. The classic Prisoner’s Dilemma illustrates that mutual cooperation yields the best results, yet a lack of trust often pushes actors towards sub-optimal outcomes.

For Sudan, the lesson is clear. If Sudan enters discussions with the United States with contradictory positions, inconsistent messages and unclear objectives, Washington will define the terms alone. In such a scenario, Sudan loses the opportunity for cooperation entirely. But suppose Sudan arrives with a unified national position and a clear sense of what it seeks, accepts and rejects. In that case, the United States will be more willing to cooperate — transforming negotiations into a mutually beneficial process.

The concept of repeated games offers an additional lesson. States do not negotiate once; they engage in long-term interactions lasting years or decades. Long-term cooperation becomes more attractive than short-term gains. Jordan mastered this approach, building a stable and predictable relationship with the United States over thirty years — yielding sustained economic and strategic support. Sudan should adopt a similar long-term perspective that goes beyond short-term thinking and rebuilds Sudan’s reputation as a reliable partner.

Sudan’s strategic environment, however, is shaped not only by the United States. Today, Saudi Arabia is one of the most influential external actors in Sudan’s political and economic landscape, and must be approached with utmost seriousness. The Kingdom is undergoing rapid transformation under Vision 2030, becoming a performance-driven, technologically-oriented state that values measurable outcomes and institutions capable of implementation. It no longer operates according to traditional patterns of emotional political promises or open-ended financial aid. Instead, its engagement is based on return on investment, strategic alignment and partner reliability.

This shift presents both an opportunity and a warning for Sudan. The opportunity lies in Saudi Arabia’s desire for stable regional partnerships in food security, energy, logistics and mining — all areas where Sudan has substantial potential. The warning is that Saudi Arabia will no longer respond to vague promises or unstructured political rhetoric. Sudan must present clear, fundable projects with transparent governance mechanisms, realistic implementation plans and competent partners. Egypt, Jordan and Morocco succeeded in attracting billions in Saudi investment by presenting structured, technically grounded proposals —not political speeches. If Sudan continues relying on outdated methods, it risks losing its position entirely.

Turning this moment into a genuine breakthrough requires Sudan to develop a clear national strategy built on internal coherence and external clarity. Domestically, this requires consensus among political actors, experts, economic institutions and civil society on a unified vision. Sudan must clearly define what it wants, what it accepts and what it cannot compromise. Externally, Sudan must present a realistic, actionable economic vision to both the United States and Saudi Arabia — involving investment in agriculture, renewable energy, mining, infrastructure and the digital economy.

Sudan must also emphasise the importance of investing in human capital. No reconstruction effort can succeed without investing in Sudan’s people — through scholarships, vocational training, public-sector development programmes, reintegration of expatriate expertise and support for entrepreneurs. Countries such as South Korea and Singapore achieved transformative change through such human-centred approaches.

Sudan must also be prepared to make carefully calculated concessions when their cost is low and their return is high. Cooperation in counter-terrorism, Red Sea security, or technical data exchange can open the door to long-term partnerships without compromising sovereignty. Countries like Kenya and Jordan have built strong relationships with global powers through this type of cooperation — provided it forms part of a clear national strategy rather than an improvised step.

Sudan now faces a decisive choice. It can continue with the old approach of reactive decision-making, internal division and reliance on the goodwill of external powers. Or it can adopt a new approach based on coherence, discipline and long-term vision. If Sudan arrives at the negotiating table prepared, guided by a clear national vision, informed by political science and game theory, and aligned with institutional transformations in both the United States and Saudi Arabia, then this moment may become a genuine opportunity to rebuild institutions, attract investment and position Sudan on the global strategic map. But if Sudan does not prepare itself properly, others will prepare on its behalf — and Sudan will once again find itself excluded from shaping its own future.

Shortlink: https://sudanhorizon.com/?p=8930