Efforts by Egypt to address the conflict in Sudan between the regular army and the paramilitary Rapid Support Forces may eventually bear fruit and end a civil war that has lasted almost a year and a half. However, questions arise as to why, despite these efforts, there have been no tangible results so far. The repercussions of the war are not limited to Sudan, but have extended beyond its borders — placing Sudan, with its importance to regional security (particularly for Egypt), in a critical position. Another question is whether Cairo can be an effective mediator and achieve a comprehensive political solution in Sudan. Could it establish a roadmap that restores security and stability to its southern neighbor? The front lines in war sometimes advance and then retreat, and the Sudan negotiations resemble this battlefield tug-of-war. The US envoy to Sudan, Tom Perriello, unexpectedly canceled a meeting with a Sudanese government delegation in Egypt, in part because of the delegation’s composition. The US wanted to meet the Sudanese army, but the Sudanese government appointed Mohamed Bashir Abunomo — the Minister of Minerals and a significant figure in the army-allied movement led by Minni Arko Minawi — to lead the delegation. This same delegation had previously met mediators in Jeddah, an encounter that yielded no significant progress. Negotiations between the warring parties in Sudan are essentially an accumulation of fears, akin to social anxiety disorder. This led one party to boycott the most recent peace talks in Geneva, and the other to be openly obstinate in attending many mediator councils. Cairo has overlooked these avoidance attempts more than once, but it remains engaged in mediation, thus proving its seriousness. Cairo has maintained neutrality and continuously called for an end to the war between the army, led by Abdel Fattah al-Burhan, and the Rapid Support Forces, led by Mohamed Hamdan Dagalo. However, accusations of bias have plagued its efforts to play a calming role. The real problem has been the increasing intervention of external parties who lack sufficient understanding of the nature of the Sudanese people and the internal power dynamics. The front lines in war sometimes advance and then retreat, and the Sudan negotiations resemble this battlefield tug-of-war Abdellatif El-Menawy The complex relationship between Egypt and Sudan is rooted in a long history of shared borders, cultural ties, and intertwined political and economic interests. The two countries share a history of connections dating back to ancient civilizations along the Nile. In the modern era, this relationship was shaped by colonial history, the management of Nile waters, and shared security concerns. The two nations often found themselves aligned in regional politics, though they also faced tensions due to differing political paths, particularly after Sudan’s independence in 1956. In the 20th century, the relationship was often viewed through the lens of Arab nationalism, with Egypt playing a significant role in shaping Sudan’s political landscape. However, after 2011, with the division of Sudan into two states — Sudan and South Sudan — the geopolitical dynamics of the region changed. Egypt’s interests in Sudan remained significant, but the complexities of Sudan"s internal politics, particularly with the rise of various military and paramilitary groups, posed new challenges for Cairo. In all these crises, Egypt has consistently taken a clear stance of not siding with any faction, even during Sudan’s darkest moments, while firmly supporting the principle of allowing the people to decide their fate without interference or dominance from any group. Egypt seeks to resolve the Sudanese crisis to protect several key interests. First is the Nile River, a lifeline for Egypt. Any instability in Sudan is a threat to Egypt’s water security. Sudan’s political stability is also vital for Egypt"s security, especially regarding the spread of extremism and armed conflicts along its southern borders. The third interest is economic: Sudan offers opportunities for investment and trade, and Egyptian companies are involved in various sectors in Sudan, from agriculture to telecommunications. Instability in Sudan threatens these economic interests and could disrupt trade routes and investment opportunities. Egypt’s involvement in mediation to end the war is therefore crucial, but what tools does Cairo possesses to enforce peace? The complex relationship between Egypt and Sudan is rooted in a long history of shared borders, cultural ties, and intertwined political and economic interests Abdellatif El-Menawy Politically, Egypt has maintained strong relations with leading Sudanese figures over the years, allowing it to play the role of mediator in times of crisis. Economically, Egypt has leveraged trade relations, investments, and aid as tools of influence. In times of crisis, Cairo has provided humanitarian aid to Sudan, making it a key partner in Sudan’s recovery. This economic influence could play a significant role in persuading Sudanese factions to align with Egyptian interests. Militarily, Egypt has a significant presence in the region and has previously provided support to the Sudanese army to maintain some level of stability, particularly in the face of increasing challenges from other armed groups. Egypt’s traditional inclination toward the Sudanese army presents both opportunities and risks. On the one hand, it gives Egypt significant influence over one of Sudan’s strongest institutions. The army has historically been a key player in Sudanese politics, often controlling the government directly or indirectly. By maintaining close relations, Egypt ensures it has a role in Sudan’s political developments. However, the perception that Egypt supports one side in the conflict carries obvious risks and challenges to any role as a mediator. Egypt is consistently trying to move beyond this perception to a more balanced approach by attempting to enforce a diplomatic strategy that acknowledges the significant presence of the Rapid Support Forces on the ground, while also pursuing Egypt’s long-term strategic interests. Egypt"s stance is clear: it remains neutral but has the military capacity to maintain peace in Sudan in the future by cooperating with whichever authority is elected. Egypt also seeks to leverage its relationships with regional and international actors to encourage a broader diplomatic effort aimed at resolving the conflict. By working with the African Union, the UN, and key Gulf states, Egypt can contribute to a multilateral effort to achieve lasting peace. Egypt is well aware that its security starts with the security of its neighbors. The continuation of war in Sudan is harmful to Egypt on all levels, but the stalled negotiations between the warring parties are not Cairo’s fault. However, it is trying in every possible way to bring about reconciliation, and I believe it will succeed. Egypt certainly possesses the tools to be a successful mediator in this war. The main condition, however, is that the warring factions in Sudan engage with any reconciliation attempts. • Dr. Abdellatif El-Menawy is a journalist who has covered conflicts worldwide. X: @ALMenawy