After more than three years, Washington continues to fumble its way through a response to Sudan’s heart-wrenching war. This past week, it may have inadvertently backed itself into a diplomatic corner that offers no options for either itself or Sudan’s army to exit, putting a ceasefire even further out of reach.

As world leaders gathered in New York for the 81st session of the United Nations General Assembly, Washington pressed hard on the leaders of the Sudanese armed forces (SAF) to sign an unconditional ceasefire that would freeze the conflict and allow unimpeded access for critical aid deliveries.

In the past, the rebel Rapid Support Forces militia, using the ample diplomatic and public relations support from its chief regional backer, has been quick to agree to any deal that puts it on equal footing with the national army it is seeking to unseat. But with no intention or ability to implement the terms of any ceasefire, the RSF’s commitment to peace is likely worth what one would expect from a mercenary army that has committed multiple rounds of genocide. Still, United States officials repeatedly refer to the RSF in diplomatic circles as the more “cooperative party”.

In that light, since earlier this year, Washington’s pressure campaign has been focused on the SAF almost exclusively in the misguided belief that sufficient pressure would bring the army to its knees and cause it to abandon its effort to liberate the millions of Sudan’s civilians trapped under RSF rule. But 20 years of comprehensive US sanctions on Sudan, far more biting and wide-ranging than anything Presidents Donald Trump’s or Joe Biden’s administrations have imposed, should have taught the Trump team that sanctions in Sudan are not instruments to be used tactically. This is a regime capable of withstanding US pressure over the long run.

Nonetheless, a new round of US sanctions against........

© Al Jazeera