Why Oman May Be the Best Mediator for Peace in Sudan
How Oman’s diplomatic expertise could end Sudan's war.
On June 3rd, U.S. Deputy Secretary of State Christopher Landau and Senior Advisor for Africa Massad Boulos met with representatives from Egypt, Saudi Arabia, and the United Arab Emirates to discuss the ongoing war in Sudan.
The “Quad for Sudan,” as these four states are collectively known, agreed that the continuation of the conflict “threatens shared interests” and that a peace settlement should be secured.
More recently, following the signing of the Rwanda-Democratic Republic of the Congo peace agreement, U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio confirmed that Sudan would be the next focal point for U.S. African policy.
Rubio stated that Boulos is “very involved” in Sudan, signaling a deepening American interest in resolving the conflict.
Sudan’s war began in April 2023, pitting the Sudanese Armed Forces (SAF) against the paramilitary Rapid Support Forces (RSF). In the two years since, the conflict has resulted in 150,000 deaths, a cholera outbreak in the capital Khartoum, and the targeting of ethnic minorities in the peripheries of the country, particularly in Darfur.
Often cited as the world’s worst humanitarian crisis and the “forgotten war,” both regional and international actors have renewed efforts to broker peace in Sudan.
While many have pointed to neighboring states like Egypt or international organizations, including the African Union, to lead these efforts, Oman may be best positioned to pave the way for an end to this brutal conflict.
The Struggles of Peacemaking in Sudan
Since the war began, several attempts have been made to end the conflict in Sudan.
The most notable of these includes the Jeddah Platform, a joint Saudi-American peace initiative backed by the AU and the Intergovernmental Authority on Development (IGAD).
Peace talks were also hosted between the warring parties in countries such as Bahrain and Switzerland last year.
Despite the best efforts of various international initiatives, no sustainable solution has yet been reached, primarily due to three main factors:
Existential War: For the SAF and RSF, much more is at stake than determining who will lead Sudan. Both parties believe their very existence is on the line. This is particularly true for the RSF, given its smaller size and lack of aerial weaponry. Consequently, both groups remain highly distrustful of each other, undermining negotiations.
RSF Confidence: Although the RSF has since lost ground to the SAF, its initial dominance throughout 2023 and much of 2024 has given the paramilitary confidence that it can defeat the army. The RSF’s announcement of its own breakaway government in regions under its control, despite recent setbacks, reflects this belief.
Foreign Support: Sudan’s conflict has attracted a wide range of international actors, each with differing interests. For example, Iran’s supply of Mohajer-6 drones to the SAF has been significant in influencing the course of the war. The SAF also accused Kenya of supporting the RSF, although Kenya has denied this claim.
While the Jeddah Platform received recognition from both the SAF and RSF, researcher Areigh Elhag observes that it faced challenges in producing a lasting resolution, largely due to it being a non-legally binding framework.
Oman: The Switzerland of the Middle East
As regional and international actors continue to push for peace, the time may be ripe for new rounds of peace talks led by Oman.
Often referred to as the “Switzerland of the Middle East,” Muscat is deeply experienced in pursuing successful diplomacy in a region often marked by competing interests.
This diplomatic approach was shaped by the Dhofar War of the 1960s and 1970s. The conflict, triggered by a Marxist-Leninist insurgency in the southern Dhofar region, received support from both regional and international powers, such as South Yemen and China.
The war ended in 1976 under Sultan Qaboos bin Said, who then pursued a foreign policy of diplomatic engagement across the Middle East to prevent future internal conflicts.
Since then, Oman has become a key partner for U.S. diplomatic efforts in the region. Notable examples include:
U.S.-Iran Nuclear Talks: In the early 2010s, talks were held between Washington and Tehran in Muscat regarding Iran’s nuclear program. These discussions laid the groundwork for the 2015 Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action. More recently, Oman hosted negotiations between the Trump administration and Iran to forge a new deal before the Twelve-Day War between Israel and Iran.
Houthi Ceasefire: Earlier this year, the Trump administration increased U.S. intervention in Yemen to curb further Red Sea attacks by the Yemeni Houthis. Oman brokered a ceasefire in May.
Oman has been able to serve as an effective mediator in the region for three main reasons:
Strategic Location: Oman is located along the Strait of Hormuz, a critical chokepoint through which approximately 20% of the world’s oil is traded. As a result, Oman is deeply invested in regional stability to avoid geoeconomic collapse.
Ibadi Islam: Oman follows its own distinct sect of Islam, Ibadi Islam, which differs from both Sunni and Shia Islam. This has enabled Oman to act as a neutral party in calming sectarian tensions.
Economic Development: Like other Gulf states, Oman is heavily focused on diversifying its economy through the Oman Vision 2040 initiative. Stability and security are crucial to Oman’s broader economic goals.
Thus far, Oman has voiced diplomatic support for Sudan, calling on all armed parties to cease hostilities and engage in negotiations. Additionally, Oman maintains ties with all involved states, including Iran and Kenya. Given its commitment to diplomacy in the region and past successes, Oman is well-positioned to lead negotiations to end the war in Sudan.
Actionable Policy, Actionable Results
For Oman’s peace efforts to succeed, they should be guided by the following measures:
Jeddah Platform Basis: As mentioned, the Jeddah Platform is recognized by both the SAF and RSF. Muscat should use it as the foundation for renewed negotiations.
Party Involvement: The Omani negotiations should involve not only Sudanese representatives but also those from neighboring states and organizations, such as the Quad and AU. This ensures that the interests of all parties are considered.
Legally Binding: Elhag points out that the Jeddah Platform's main weakness was its lack of a legally binding framework. Oman should work to convert the Jeddah declaration into a UN Security Council resolution. This would make it legally binding and bolster its international credibility.
Interregional Task Force: Given the numerous international actors invested in ending the war, it is critical to oversee the implementation of any peace settlement. Oman can establish a task force, composed of the U.S., AU, IGAD, Arab League, and UN, to monitor compliance with the agreement.
While mediating an end to the war presents significant challenges—as is the case in every conflict—there is a clear opportunity for a new settlement that can restore stability to this troubled northeast African state. Building on its diplomatic successes, Oman has the potential to lead the way in achieving peace.
Do you think Oman can bring peace to Sudan? What would an agreement settled by the Omanis look like? Let me know down below!