Observers describe US sanctions on companies linked to the Sudanese army and the Rapid Support Forces (RSF ) as "ineffective" in bringing an end to the war in Sudan. Instead, they argue these sanctions have devastated citizens' livelihoods and the Sudanese economy.
They stress that both sides in this gruelling war rely primarily on gold revenues, via smuggling or official channels, to finance the war effort, in addition to support from allies.
As a result, multiple channels beyond the reach of sanctions continue to sustain the conflict.
Last Friday, the US Department of the Treasury's Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) announced sanctions targeting eight individuals and entities, saying they formed procurement and recruitment networks that contributed to prolonging the war between the Sudanese army and the RSF.
The department said the networks enabled both sides to expand and intensify the fighting, worsening the humanitarian crisis in Sudan , contributing to regional instability and creating an environment conducive to extremist activity.
The sanctions targeted "TMAC", which is controlled by Sudan's Defence Industries System through the Giad Industrial Group, for its role in importing explosives and related equipment from Egyptian and Indian companies for use in manufacturing bombs used by the Sudanese army.
The sanctions also included Tarek Hussein Mohamed Madani, general manager of "TMAC", and India's "SBL Energy Limited", which Washington said had supplied "TMAC" with more than 200 shipments of explosives and related materials since 2024.
They also targeted Alok Chaudhary, chief executive of "SBL", and Sudan's "Ports Engineering Company Ltd", which the department accused of importing military uniforms, ammunition belts and weapons crates on behalf of institutions linked to the Sudanese state since the outbreak of the war.
The US sanctions also included three people linked to "Talent Bridge S.A", a Panama-registered company accused of helping recruit former Colombian soldiers to fight in Sudan alongside the RSF: Enrique Daniel Palacios Quintania, Jack Peter Dierman Guzman and Fredy Alejandro Lopez Ocampo.
The US Treasury Department acknowledged that the sanctions freeze all assets and property belonging to the listed individuals and entities within the United States or under the control of US persons, while prohibiting any transactions with them.
It warned that violations of the sanctions could expose individuals and companies to civil or criminal penalties. Impact on the Sudanese economy Economic and banking expert Abu Obeida Ahmed told The New Arab , "US sanctions have had a clear impact on the Sudanese economy, but they were not the only cause of the severe economic crisis the country has faced for years.
"The sanctions, particularly between 1997 and 2017, made it difficult for Sudan to deal with the global financial and banking system, increased the cost of trade, imports, remittances and banking activities, reduced foreign investment, and contributed to higher inflation, rising commodity prices and the depreciation of the national currency," Ahmed said. "At the same time, domestic factors such as weak economic management, widespread corruption, wars, and the loss of most oil revenues following South Sudan's secession in 2011 played a major role in worsening the economic crisis."
"As for citizens, the economic decline has been reflected in their daily lives through rising living costs, fewer employment opportunities, reduced purchasing power and difficulty obtaining some goods and services. Citizens have therefore been the most affected by the combined impact of US sanctions and domestic economic problems ," he added.
For decades, the Sudanese economy has suffered severe crises because of political instability, the repercussions of geopolitical risks, security tensions and civil wars.
These have led to waves of high inflation, sharp price increases, the collapse of the local currency against the US dollar, a steep contraction in gross domestic product, erosion of purchasing power, destruction of infrastructure, and the shutdown of productive facilities and factories. Sanctions do not weaken military capabilities From a military perspective, sanctions do not usually weaken armies or armed forces directly because they primarily target funding sources, companies and equipment procurement networks rather than military units on the battlefield.
As a result, their military impact usually emerges over the medium and long term if they reduce financial resources or make it harder to obtain equipment and spare parts, according to economic expert Abu Obeida Ahmed.
He added that, in the case of the Sudanese army, US sanctions since 2023 have targeted certain companies, entities and individuals linked to the military establishment rather than the Sudanese army as a whole.
So far, there is no publicly available evidence that these sanctions have caused a decisive decline in its combat capabilities because the army's performance also depends on other factors, including the size and readiness of its forces, its military stockpiles, its supply sources and its ability to secure alternatives.
As for the RSF, sanctions have focused more heavily on its economic and financial networks because the continuation of its operations depends largely on financing, trade and supply chains.
International reports indicate that the RSF's main funding sources include the gold trade, commercial and investment companies, and various economic activities, including illicit ones, as well as financial and logistical networks inside and outside Sudan.
Targeting these networks may therefore increase financing costs and make it more difficult to obtain weapons, equipment and logistical services, but it does not necessarily halt military operations if alternative funding or supply sources are available, Ahmed said.
More broadly, the economic expert believes sanctions weaken financial resources and increase the cost of waging war, but they do not resolve military conflicts on their own.
Their effectiveness remains linked to the extent of the targeted party's reliance on the international financial system and its ability to find alternative sources of funding and arms. Increasing hardship for citizens Ahmed Khalil, a specialist in economic affairs, told The New Arab that "such US sanctions have been tried before in Sudan without having a direct impact on the targeted parties, while citizens, markets and economic activity bore the main consequences, especially since the sanctioned entities have multiple funding channels".
"The continuation of the war is certainly affecting citizens' livelihoods, as we see today, because all resources are directed towards the war effort, worsening living conditions," he added. "As for the current sanctions imposed on the Sudanese army and the RSF, both sides have relied for years on gold revenues, either through smuggling or official exports, because of gold's acceptance in the global market. Consequently, they will not be affected by the sanctions, and the war will continue."
Khalil concluded by saying that "if America wants to stop the war, it should impose sanctions on the main backers and financiers of the war and those responsible for its continuation in Sudan. These current sanctions only increase the suffering of citizens and prolong the war ." Article translated from Arabic by Afrah Almatwari. To read the original, click here .