The Nobel Trap: how MBS Lured Trump into a conflict Trump Admitted Wasn't 'On My Charts'
Summary: Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman's recent visit to Washington focused on arms deals and investment pledges, but was overshadowed by President Trump's surprising commitment to intervene in the complex, regionally-fueled civil war in Sudan at the Crown Prince's request. This involvement risks drawing Trump into a protracted conflict that has resisted prior diplomatic efforts and is now creating one of the world's worst humanitarian crises.
We thank an Arab Digest contributor who prefers to remain anonymous for today’s newsletter.
Predictable headlines followed Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman’s visit to Washington this past week, where President Donald Trump sought to turn the page on a strained US-Saudi relationship. The president berated a reporter who raised the issue that the Crown Prince was found by U.S. intelligence agencies to have approved the killing of journalist Jamal Khashoggi in 2018. The White House touted a prospective Saudi pledge of between $600 billion and $1 trillion in investment inside the United States, though offered few specifics. Major arms deals, including potential F-35 aircraft sales, grabbed attention as well.
But buried beneath the spectacle was Trump’s disclosure that the two leaders had spoken at length about a war far from U.S. shores. Not in Gaza. Not in Ukraine. Trump said, “His majesty would like me to do something very powerful having to do with Sudan.” He continued in front of the Crown Prince, “I thought it was just something that was crazy and out of control…But I see how important that is to you, and to a lot of your friends in the room.”
Trump, ever eager to expand the roster of foreign conflicts he claims to have ended, now faces the daunting task of delivering a diplomatic breakthrough where years of political efforts have faltered.
The conflict, which erupted in April 2023 between the Sudanese Armed Forces (SAF) and the Rapid Support Forces (RSF), is not merely the product of internal power struggles. It has been shaped by regional alignments that have transformed the conflict into an all-out war. Egypt, whose military and political leadership has long viewed Sudan’s army as a strategic partner, emerged as the SAF’s main backer. Egypt sees the SAF as a guarantor to help protect its shared southern border while also keeping Sudan aligned with Cairo’s position in its increasingly fraught water standoff with a rising Ethiopia.
The United Arab Emirates, meanwhile, has thrown material and financial support behind the RSF. It had partnered with its leader Mohamed Hamdan Dagalo in its earlier battle with the Huthis in Yemen. Emirati leadership see Hemedti, as the RSF leader is called, as a partner capable of advancing Emirati interests including access to the Red Sea, access to farmland, and access to gold.
These alignments led to the conflict’s escalation and complicated international diplomacy turning what began as a fierce domestic contest for power in Khartoum into a regional struggle. Saudi Arabia stepped in early on to try to mediate the conflict to stabilise the Red Sea region and the kingdom’s ambitious Vision 2030 agenda.
![]()
Mr. Trump rolled out the red carpet for MBS with a military flyover followed by a black-tie quasi-state dinner complete with soccer stars and tech and Wall Street billionaires [photo credit: White House]MBS’s appeal to Trump at the White House this past week shows just how concerned he has become with Saudi Arabia’s unstable neighbor just across the Red Sea. Sudan is now experiencing the largest displacement crisis in the world, with famine conditions spreading across multiple regions. In October, the RSF seized El Fasher in North Darfur, triggering a mass killing of civilians so extensive that it has reportedly been visible from satellite imagery. The scale and brutality of the violence have alarmed regional governments who fear the conflict’s spillover effects as well as the humanitarian catastrophe unfolding on their doorstep.
The Trump administration will need to show a rare degree of focus if there is hope that the United States can persuade foreign capitals to step back from a war they have spent years shaping. In September, the United States, Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates and Egypt, known as the “Quad,” called for a ceasefire to allow for humanitarian assistance, which would be followed by a permanent ceasefire and a transition to civilian rule.
Despite this consensus, there is concern that such announcements are merely diplomatic cover. US Secretary of State Marco Rubio shared some of the harshest remarks to date in November, stopping short of directly calling out the UAE, at a G7 foreign ministers meeting in Canada. "I don't want to get into calling anybody out at a press conference today, because what we want is a good outcome here…We know who the parties are that are involved [in weapons supply]... That's why they're part of the Quad along with other countries involved."
Any American breakthrough in halting or constraining the flow of foreign support would be a major diplomatic victory. But it would not by itself end Sudan’s war. Over the past two and a half years, the conflict has metastasised. The brutal contest between two military leaders has now drawn in ethnic and tribal actors, as well as Islamist elements who were part of the former regime under President Omar al-Bashir, who governed Sudan for 30 years. The SAF rejected the Quad proposal, citing the intervention as an infringement of the country’s sovereignty. The RSF agreed to the ceasefire, but only after its 18-month siege led to the takeover of El Fasher.
In many areas, armed groups no longer respond consistently to direction from Khartoum, let alone to appeals from their foreign patrons. The war started off top-down but has since become decentralised.
For Trump, who continues to call for a Nobel Prize, the multilayered nature of the conflict presents a profound challenge. Even if foreign backers genuinely back de-escalation efforts, this will not necessarily turn into the SAF and the RSF entering a negotiation process. And even if they did agree to talks, command structures have eroded and the fragmented reality on the ground means that the alphabet soup of local militias may not even listen.
Any diplomatic efforts will not yield quick wins. The Sudanese have endured genocide and years of dictatorship. A durable settlement will require a political process inclusive of civilian movements and technocratic networks that drove Sudan’s short-lived democratic transition in 2019.
The United States can still show it has the political capital to bring all sides, both foreign and local, to the table. It will demand sustained engagement and intensive coordination around a war that Trump had admitted “wasn’t on my charts.” But, without American attention, the conflict will certainly continue to burn, reshaping the region and deepening one of the world’s worst humanitarian catastrophes.
Members can leave comments about this newsletter on the Arab Digest website.