Why have the foreign parties involved in Sudan adopted the side of caution?

FARAAN: Observers and specialists of Sudan affairs raise the issue of why the foreign parties interested in Sudan are taking the side of caution in dealing with the unrest in this country and are only monitoring the situation.
From the very beginning of the ceasefire issue in Sudan, its fragile fate was clear. In the ineffective reception of this issue by the parties, Burhan took the pose of a character who defends security and establishment, and in front of Hamidti, he was looking for an opportunity to gain points or strengthen his front with this same gesture.
But there are different reasons why foreign parties interested in Sudan have carefully limited themselves to monitoring and following the unrest in Sudan, which is gradually becoming a week.
In 2019, Egypt was pleased with the developments in Sudan and the elimination of the danger of the ruling brotherhoods in this country from beyond its borders, and pursued the solution of the Sadal Ennahda problem under the shadow of the new government. For this reason, at that time, Egypt even appeared as a “guarantor” between the military and civilians in the field of Sudan’s internal politics. Accordingly, it is quite natural for Al-Sisi to say in such a situation that he does not interfere in the affairs of Sudan and only calls for peace and stability in Sudan.
Saudi Arabia, which traditionally is concerned with Sudan’s brotherhoods, naturally does not want Sudan to leave the situation after Al-Bashir’s rule, and for this reason, it emphasizes stability and peace in this country. Of course, maybe the problem of making a decision regarding current Sudan is much more for the Saudis than for others, because on the one hand, they see their loyal “Burhan” on one side of the battle, and on the other hand, on the front opposite to Burhan, they see Hamidti, who in the during the formation of the anti-Yemen coalition, sent at least 15,000 Sudanese to help Saudi Arabia against the Houthis, and until recently, although he reduced this number to 5,000 people, he did not leave Saudi Arabia behind.
Even though the UAE has no problems with both of them, it is easier with Hamidti. In 2021, Hamidti very quickly joined the front of “normalization” of relations with Israel, which the UAE had become a scout for, and finally both Burhan and Hamidti joined the many normalizers in 2021, despite the opposing view of Hamdok’s government and the people of Sudan. It is said that there are special economic and financial relations between the UAE and Burhan.
But America, which actually managed to air the issue of establishing a Russian base in the Red Sea with the fall of al-Bashir in 2019, recently received whispers from Hamidati about reproducing the idea of establishing this base.
Based on this, it seems that the Americans, looking at the developments in Sudan, are cautiously inclined to favor this Russian ally in Sudan, and are also worried about the possible return of Sudan to Russia’s lap. The most worrisome element in the international arena regarding Sudan and its future is probably the Zionist regime, because both its coalition in the Red Sea region (read the most important location of its presence) and bold and bullying compromisers such as the ruling army of Sudan.
It is not far from the mind that either the civil war in Sudan will be eroded, or with the escape of one, most likely Hamidati, the unrest will calm down based on the rule of not including two kings in the same region. Hamidati knows that in the current situation and by calming down the situation or being short in the battle as a rebel and rioter, he has no fate other than execution, but what is still unknown is, with which foreign support did Hamidati take this big risk?
It seems that in the future analysis of the developments in the Wajan region, Hamidati made a correct diagnosis, and again, it seems that he did not take this great risk of life and death without the support of a power or powers outside the borders of Sudan.