U.S. Urges Sudan’s Factions to Accept Ceasefire Plan Unaltered

At a news conference in Abu Dhabi on November 25, 2025, Massad Boulos, the U.S. senior adviser for Arab and African affairs, urged both Sudanese parties to accept a ceasefire plan put forward by the Quad mediators without negotiating preconditions. The Quad, composed of the United States, Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates and Egypt, has proposed a comprehensive package intended to create a three month humanitarian ceasefire followed by a political process.

Boulos framed the proposal as a practical mechanism to end immediate violence and to establish conditions for diplomacy. He cautioned that public rejection of the text by the Sudanese army risked undermining international mediation efforts and imperiling the slim window for aid to reach besieged communities. His remarks underscore the central bargaining tension in the conflict, where competing calls for preconditions have repeatedly stalled stops to fighting and impeded aid deliveries.

The call from Abu Dhabi comes a day after the Rapid Support Forces announced a unilateral pause in fighting, a development that raised hopes among diplomats but also highlighted the fragility of ad hoc measures. The RSF announcement has increased pressure on the Sudanese Armed Forces to reciprocate in a coordinated manner, without which the pause could collapse and humanitarian corridors would remain insecure.

Regional actors and international bodies signalled varied responses. The United Arab Emirates and several African regional organizations signalled support for resuming negotiations on the Quad text, reinforcing the geopolitical coalition behind the proposal. Rights groups, however, stressed that any agreement must include robust monitoring and accountability mechanisms given ongoing allegations of mass atrocities. Humanitarian organizations have repeatedly warned that ceasefires without independent verification and accountability risk becoming temporary and ineffective.

The immediate implications are practical and economic. A stable pause would allow humanitarian convoys to reach urban centers and rural areas that have been cut off, potentially mitigating acute shortages of food, water and medical supplies. It would also ease investor anxiety and reduce the risk of wider regional spillovers that can disrupt trade routes and commodity flows in the Red Sea and neighboring markets. Conversely, a breakdown of diplomacy would likely deepen displacement, complicate reconstruction costs and increase fiscal pressure on neighboring states that are hosting refugees.

Policymakers face a narrow set of choices. Accepting the Quad text unaltered could produce a rapid, enforceable cessation of hostilities and open space for verification and a political timetable. Insisting on preconditions could yield concessions on both sides but would almost certainly delay relief and prolong risk to civilians. The coming days will test whether international mediation can translate diplomatic weight into on the ground security.

For now, the fate of the plan rests on whether the Sudanese Armed Forces will move from public rejection to engagement, and whether international backers can marshal verification capacity quickly enough to make a ceasefire credible. The outcome will determine not only immediate humanitarian access but the broader trajectory of Sudan’s fragile transition and regional stability.