Por Renan Filho · 2026-09-28**Lead**
A simmering diplomatic confrontation between the United States and Sudan over visa restrictions has laid bare the grim reality of a war the world has largely ignored. The dispute, which escalated this week with reciprocal expulsions of diplomats, comes as foreign powers—including Russia, Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, and Iran—deepen their involvement in a conflict that has devastated the African nation since April 2023. The clash over visas is not merely a procedural spat; it is a symptom of a broader struggle for strategic influence along the Red Sea, a vital global shipping corridor, and over Sudan’s vast agricultural and mineral wealth.
**Contexto**
The immediate trigger for the visa confrontation was the US State Department’s decision to deny entry to a delegation of Sudanese military officials scheduled to attend a United Nations General Assembly side event in New York. The officials, representing the Sudanese Armed Forces (SAF) led by General Abdel Fattah al-Burhan, were deemed ineligible under revised US visa policies that now require rigorous vetting for individuals linked to parties accused of war crimes. In response, Sudan’s de facto government—which controls much of the country’s east and is recognized by the UN as the legitimate authority—ordered the expulsion of two US diplomats from Khartoum, accusing them of “interference in internal affairs.” The US Embassy in Sudan, which relocated to Port Sudan after the war began, confirmed the expulsions but declined to comment on the visa denials.
This diplomatic rupture is the latest chapter in a war that erupted in April 2023 when the SAF and the paramilitary Rapid Support Forces (RSF), led by Mohamed Hamdan Dagalo (known as Hemedti), turned on each other after years of tense cohabitation. The conflict has killed an estimated 150,000 people, according to US intelligence figures cited by the United Nations, and displaced over 11 million—making it the world’s largest displacement crisis. Yet international media coverage has been sparse, overshadowed by the wars in Ukraine and Gaza. The United Nations has described the situation as a “forgotten war,” with humanitarian funding at less than 40 percent of what is needed.
The visa dispute has refocused attention on the role of external actors. The SAF has received military support from Egypt and Turkey, while the RSF has been backed by the United Arab Emirates, which has provided weapons and logistical support via Chad and Libya, according to a UN Security Council report published in January 2025. Russia, through the Wagner Group (now rebranded as Africa Corps), has maintained a presence in Sudan, securing gold mining concessions in exchange for mercenary support to the SAF. Iran has supplied drones to the SAF, while Saudi Arabia has attempted to mediate peace talks, though with little success. The United States, for its part, has imposed sanctions on both sides but has been criticized for failing to exert meaningful pressure.
**Analise**
The visa clash is significant because it underscores the limits of US influence in a region where other powers are willing to provide military and diplomatic cover to warring factions. By denying visas to SAF officials, Washington is signaling that it will not normalize relations with a government that has been accused of indiscriminate bombing of civilian areas and blocking humanitarian aid. However, the expulsion of US diplomats shows that Khartoum is willing to risk a rupture with the West, betting that alternative patrons—particularly Russia and China—can fill the void. This is a high-stakes gamble: Sudan’s economy is in ruins, with inflation exceeding 300 percent and the Sudanese pound losing most of its value. The country’s gold reserves, once a source of revenue, are now largely controlled by armed groups.
For the United States, the strategic stakes are clear. Sudan sits on the Red Sea, opposite Saudi Arabia and Yemen, and controls a coastline that is critical for global energy shipments. A failed state in this location could become a haven for terrorist groups, a launching pad for attacks on shipping, or a proxy battleground for regional rivals. The US Africa Command has warned that the power vacuum is being exploited by the Islamic State’s affiliate in the Sahel and by Al-Shabaab, which has established training camps in eastern Sudan. Meanwhile, Russia is negotiating a naval base on the Sudanese coast—a deal that was suspended after the war began but could be revived if Moscow gains leverage through arms sales.
The international community’s response has been fragmented. The African Union has attempted to broker ceasefires, but its efforts have been undermined by the refusal of the warring parties to negotiate. The United Nations Security Council has been paralyzed by divisions between the US, Russia, and China, each backing different actors. Humanitarian organizations warn that the situation is deteriorating rapidly, with famine declared in parts of Darfur and Kordofan. The World Food Programme has reported that 18 million Sudanese are facing acute food insecurity, the highest number in the world.
**Fontes**
This report is based on information from the following sources: the United Nations Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA), the US State Department press briefings from September 2025, the UN Security Council report on Sudan (January 2025), the African Union Peace and Security Council communiqués, the World Food Programme’s Sudan Emergency Dashboard, and the International Crisis Group’s Sudan analysis published in August 2025. Additional context was drawn from reporting by Reuters, the Associated Press, and Al Jazeera English, all of which have maintained correspondents in Port Sudan and Nairobi covering the conflict.