RSF Forces Encircle Sudan's El Obeid as UN, U.S. and European Governments Warn of Possible Mass Atrocities

Siege Lines Around a Sudanese Crossroads

Sudan's Rapid Support Forces have encircled El Obeid, the army-held capital of North Kordofan state, cutting the main routes in and out and subjecting the city to sustained drone strikes^[1][8]. About 500,000 civilians are trapped inside, among them roughly 105,000 people already displaced from earlier fighting elsewhere^[1][3]. The paramilitary RSF has been at war with the Sudanese Armed Forces (SAF) since April 2023, and El Obeid is the latest and, by many accounts, most consequential front in that conflict^[1][3].

The toll on the city is measurable and mounting. UN Human Rights Office monitors documented 15 drone strikes on El Obeid and the surrounding area over roughly three weeks, killing at least 45 civilians and hitting a power station, fuel stations, transport links, shelters, and residential neighborhoods^[8]. Blackouts have followed the strikes on infrastructure, and food prices inside the city have risen by as much as 300 percent as supply routes have been choked off^[1][3]. The army continues to hold the city center for now, while the RSF controls the outskirts and the roads leading out, and no negotiated pause has taken hold^[3].

Why El Obeid, Why Now

The city's value is geographic rather than symbolic. El Obeid sits at the junction of routes connecting Darfur, Kordofan, and central Sudan, meaning whoever controls it controls the flow of people and supplies between those regions^[3]. For the RSF, taking the city would help reconnect its territory after the loss of Khartoum, restoring a corridor that was severed when the group was pushed out of the capital^[3]. For the army, holding El Obeid preserves both a strategic gateway and its broader claim to be the legitimate government of Sudan^[3].

Hanging over the siege is the memory of El Fasher, the Darfur city that fell to the RSF in October 2025 after an 18-month siege. UN estimates put the death toll in the first days after that city's fall at more than 6,000 people^[3][5]. In July 2026, a UN Fact-Finding Mission went further, concluding that RSF conduct in El Fasher — mass killings, abductions, and gang rape — bears "distinct markers of genocide," and the same mission has opened an inquiry into events unfolding at El Obeid^[5][16]. That precedent is now the fixed reference point for nearly every government and institution watching the new siege, shaping predictions of what the RSF might do and arguments about how the world should respond^[5][16].

The Warnings, and Washington's Balancing Act

The U.S. State Department, the United Nations, and a coalition of roughly 29 countries have issued statements warning that mass atrocities could be imminent if the RSF moves to assault El Obeid the way it did El Fasher^[6][7]. In a June 2026 statement, the State Department said it was "deeply concerned" and that "mass atrocities could be imminent," calling on the RSF to protect civilians^[6]. The RSF has generally denied deliberately targeting civilians, saying instead that army airstrikes are responsible for much of the civilian harm in the conflict^[3].

Underneath the warnings sits a more complicated picture of who arms whom. In January 2025, the U.S. Treasury sanctioned UAE-based companies it accused of supplying the RSF with weapons, and Washington has also sanctioned networks linked to the SAF^[6][9]. The United Arab Emirates denies arming the RSF and describes itself as "not a party" to Sudan's conflict, casting its regional posture as counter-Islamist and pro-stability^[3][10]. At the Munich Security Conference in February 2026, UK Home Secretary Yvette Cooper said a British government review of more than 2,000 arms export licenses had found no evidence supporting claims that the UAE armed the RSF, calling the allegations unfounded^[17]. Any government weighing sanctions against a close economic partner faces competing pressures, and critics on the U.S. left and among restraint-minded analysts argue that a roughly $1.4 trillion UAE investment pledge to the United States has made Washington reluctant to hold Abu Dhabi accountable, even as U.S. officials point to the sanctions already imposed on both sides^[9][10].

Each Side's Case

The RSF frames its campaign as a fight to break the grip of an army it says is still dominated by Islamist remnants of the former Bashir government, and it presents El Obeid as a legitimate military objective rather than a campaign against civilians^[3]. The UAE, for its part, points to reviews like the UK's arms-license audit as evidence that accusations of its involvement are unsubstantiated, and frames its regional role in terms of stability rather than intervention^[10][17].

The SAF, by contrast, presents itself as the internationally recognized government defending a besieged population against a militia with a documented record of mass killing at El Fasher, and it argues that treating the two sides as morally equivalent understates the threat^[3][5]. Holding El Obeid is central to that claim, both militarily and politically, since losing it would undercut the army's case that it — not the RSF — represents the legitimate state^[3].

Humanitarian organizations, including the International Rescue Committee, Human Rights Watch, Amnesty International, and Refugees International, argue that the warning signs from El Fasher are unambiguous and that genuine prevention requires cutting the RSF's external supply lines rather than issuing statements alone^[5][10]. The European Parliament has already moved in that direction, passing a resolution in July 2026 by a vote of 476 to 28, with 96 abstentions, urging the EU to designate the RSF a terrorist organization^[11].

How the Story Looks Depending on Where You Read It

Coverage of El Obeid has split largely along which actors outlets are willing to name. Al Jazeera, funded by Qatar, a regional rival of the UAE, has directly labeled the RSF's campaign a "UAE-backed" siege and drawn explicit comparisons to El Fasher^[1][3]. Middle East Eye and India's Eastern Herald go further, building the UAE's alleged culpability directly into their headlines and, in the Eastern Herald's case, framing the $1.4 trillion investment relationship as actively shielding Abu Dhabi from accountability^[14][15].

The National, an Abu Dhabi state-owned outlet, describes the crisis as a "plea to both warring sides," a framing that does not mention the UAE's alleged role as an arms supplier^[12]. U.S. establishment-oriented outlets like Foreign Policy center their coverage on Washington's sanctions toolkit and treat RSF culpability as settled while writing more cautiously about the UAE's position as a U.S. partner^[9]. Restraint-oriented U.S. outlets such as Responsible Statecraft take the opposite tack, framing the story primarily as one of American hypocrisy enabled by Gulf money^[10]. Dedicated coverage from U.S. conservative outlets was notably thin across searches, leaving that vantage underrepresented in available reporting[research log].

What remains constant across every version of the story is the material situation on the ground: a city encircled, its power and water systems damaged by drone strikes, roughly half a million people unable to leave, and a paramilitary force with a recent record of mass killing positioned at its edges^[1][3][8].