Wracked by war for two-and-a-half years, Sudan lies in ruins. Half a dozen peace initiatives have failed, none of them able to pressure or persuade regional powerbrokers to push for a compromise.

Many Sudanese ask if the world cares whether they live or die.

Could that be about to change with direct intervention from the Oval Office?

By US President Donald Trump’s own admission, the conflict was not on his “charts to be involved in that. I thought it was just something that was crazy and out of control.”

But that was before a White House meeting 10 days ago with Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman of Saudi Arabia. He briefed the president on what was happening and asked him to intervene.

Afterwards, Trump said: “We’re going to start working on Sudan.”

He later posted on social media that “tremendous atrocities are taking place in Sudan. It has become the most violent place on Earth” and pledged to work with Egypt, Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates to end the violence.

In fact, the US had already been involved in negotiations, but perhaps Trump’s personal leverage with the leaders of those allies – all accused of backing one side or the other in Sudan – could make a difference.

With nearly 12 million driven from their homes and famine conditions continuing in parts of the country, the Sudanese are desperate for something – anything – that could break the deadlock.

Trump’s comments on the situation came just a few days after the civil war reached a new nadir of horror at the end of October.

Following a 500-day starvation siege, the paramilitary Rapid Support Forces (RSF) captured the city of el-Fasher, the army’s last stronghold in the westernmost region of Darfur.

The RSF fighters rampaged through the city, killing, raping and looting. Estimates for the numbers of people who perished in this ethnically targeted massacre range upwards from 5,000.

Mobile phone footage filmed by the killers themselves of them tormenting, torturing and killing victims – known as “trophy videos” – circulated on social media.

In the wake of the killing, the war leaders’ posturing followed a long-standing pattern.

After seizing el-Fasher, RSF head Gen Mohamed Hamdan Dagalo, known as “Hemedti”, announced that he would be ready for a ceasefire. He wanted to polish a reputation stained by the mass killing.

But stung by their humiliation on the battlefield, Sudan’s generals were not ready to compromise.

Armed forces chief Gen Abdel Fattah al-Burhan, leader of the UN-recognised government, rejected a ceasefire, promising to fight on.

Burhan – and especially the Islamists within his camp – are in fighting mood now, describing the RSF as a terrorist rabble that must be defeated completely.

Hemedti publicly offers compromise. But the atrocities of his troops tell a different story and few people of the cities they have ransacked will contemplate living under their rule.

When they have just suffered a defeat, the army commanders consistently vow to avenge their losses and regain their pride. And when they are winning, they insist that they can finish the job.

During 40 years of wars in southern Sudan, Darfur and elsewhere, this mindset has meant that Sudan’s leaders spurn formulas for peace offered by mediators.

With the country now facing de facto partition, this is the pattern that Trump needs to break.

Regional states back different sides in the war.

Egypt and Turkey have stepped up their arms supplies to the Sudanese army. Saudi Arabia also leans towards the army.

Multiple reports from investigative journalists and intelligence agencies show that the UAE has been arming the RSF, and it is reportedly increasing its supplies. The UAE has always denied this.

The first step towards peace is for the key regional states to cease fuelling the flames and instead use their influence for peace.

For six months, US Secretary of State Marco Rubio and senior advisor for Africa Massad Boulos have been hammering out a plan.

They established the “Quad” – the US plus Egypt, Saudi Arabia and the UAE – and drafted a plan with three key elements:

• a ceasefire
• access for humanitarian aid
• negotiations to set up a government headed by civilians.

The Quad affirmed its plan in September and met again Washington last month. But it could not quite close the gap between the Sudanese warring parties, and then the RSF attacked el-Fasher.

On face value, Bin Salman’s appeal to Trump gives much more weight to the Quad plan.

The US president is the one figure who could intervene with UAE President Sheikh Mohamed bin Zayed Al Nahyan and persuade him to change course.

The problem is that Saudi Arabia and the UAE are engaged in a fierce rivalry for influence across the Arab world, including countries such as Yemen and Syria, as well as Sudan.

It is a contest for who will be the leading power in the Arabian peninsula.

The two also have policy differences, especially on how to handle the Muslim Brotherhood – Saudi Arabia can tolerate the Islamists provided they do not have a leading role, whereas the UAE considers it a terrorist organisation.

Because Burhan’s coalition includes Islamists, who were powerful and wealthy during the 30-year rule of former President Omar al-Bashir from 1989 to 2019, the UAE has taken sides against them.

Trump would also need to get Saudi Arabia and the UAE to push Sudan higher up their list of priorities.

For both countries, Sudan comes below issues such as Gaza and Syria, as well as finance and commerce.

Despite his personal appeal to the US president, it is not clear whether Bin Salman offered to set aside his differences with the Emirati leader in order to make peace in Sudan.

And Burhan appears to interpret the prince’s intervention in Washington as overriding the Quad plan, not bolstering it, as it could imply excluding the UAE.

He wants to see a bigger role for Saudi Arabia in the mediation, and the UAE shut out of it – which is a green light to intensify the war, not end it.

In order to really be effective, Trump would need to exert enormous pressure on the UAE to end its reported backing of the RSF.

But with bigger issues at stake – the UAE is the champion of the Abraham Accords and a major investment partner – the Trump White House is not likely to take sides against Abu Dhabi over the war in Sudan.

It has not made a single public reprimand of the UAE and the prospect of actions – used in other conflicts – such as economic sanctions is zero.

For now, the US is relying on quiet diplomacy to persuade the Emiratis to use their leverage over their Sudanese proteges. That demands diplomatic finesse.

Sudan’s long-suffering people are hoping that the Trump White House has the skill and patience for peace.

Even if the Quad wins a ceasefire, it is only the beginning.

With aid budgets cut to the bone, the $3bn (£2.3bn) urgently needed for humanitarian aid will be hard to find. Without a massively stepped-up aid effort, any truce will be fragile.

And that is just the beginning of a long and fraught road to peace in Sudan.

The Sudanese are polarised and bitter, and most of them do not trust any of the generals.

The civilians who took to the streets to bring down Bashir seven years ago are still demanding democracy and justice.

And many worry that if the Arab countries steer the peace process, Sudan’s destination will be to become an Arab dependency.

Alex de Waal is the executive director of the World Peace Foundation at the Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy at Tufts University in the US