Strategic U.S. Priorities: Curbing Iranian Influence from Morocco to the East
The United States government, in collaboration with the United Nations, is vigorously pursuing diplomatic efforts aimed at resolving the long-standing Maghreb conflict before the end of the current year. These initiatives hinge on the implementation of UN Security Council Resolution 2797, which endorses granting the Western Sahara region autonomous governance under Moroccan sovereignty while dismantling the Tindouf camps and facilitating the return of their inhabitants to their homeland. This conflict, which has persisted for over fifty years, is now classified within Washington as a strategic priority, not merely for Maghreb interests, but due to its direct implications for U.S. national security across three interlinked regions: the Middle East, Africa, and Southern Mediterranean. American sources indicate that the ongoing dispute cultivates an environment conducive to the proliferation of Iranian influence throughout the region.
Furthermore, sources have highlighted a notable synchronicity between the commencement of negotiations between Lebanese and Israeli delegations, sponsored by President Trump, and the UN Security Council sessions focused on the Western Sahara issue. The Security Council convened two closed sessions on April 24 and 30, centering on terminating this conflict, dismantling the camps, and disarming the "Polisario Front," which U.S. parties accuse of receiving training and weapons through channels associated with "Hezbollah." Although these accusations have yet to be substantiated with documented evidence, they reflect the intertwined nature of these geopolitical matters.
Complex Regional Files
Despite the differing contexts and specifics of the Arab East and North African files, both intersect within a new strategic security paradigm that Washington is rapidly establishing. This paradigm is underpinned by a core principle: the limitation of engagement and negotiations to legitimate states and governments, thereby excluding non-state actors—whether they are armed factions with religious affiliations or politically motivated movements claiming legitimacy outside internationally recognized institutional frameworks—from major settlement equations. In this regard, Iran is perceived as a supporter of "Hezbollah," thereby rendering the Lebanese arena a pawn in a broader regional equation that does not necessarily serve the pure interests of Lebanon.
On the subject of Western Sahara, analytical circles have raised questions about the nature of the relationship between Tehran and the "Polisario Front," particularly in light of the historical tensions between Iran and Morocco, especially following the Iranian revolution. Ultimately, it appears that Washington favors direct engagement with both Rabat and Algiers as the principal parties in this prolonged dispute, which intertwines Cold War legacies with regional power dynamics between two competing neighbors. This pathway underscores a U.S. conviction that any lasting settlement can only be achieved through the directly involved parties, independent of external power agendas.
European capitals recognize that "stability in Lebanon and the resolution of the Moroccan Sahara dispute could significantly undermine Iranian influence across the entirety of the Middle East and North Africa." Paris, in particular, believes that strengthening the legitimate state in Lebanon and initiating reconstruction projects will help restore the political, economic, and tourism roles of the country, leading to a more secure and prosperous Middle East. In the Maghreb, resolving the Sahara issue opens up hope for revitalizing the historical integration project envisioned by successive generations.
Sources indicate that achieving a resolution to the North African dispute, which has endured for half a century without resolution, would alleviate burdens on the U.S. administration in more complex regional files, particularly in reducing the field influence of "Hezbollah" and allowing for a more independent Lebanese role within the new Middle Eastern framework that Washington is outlining.
In this context, Republican Senator Ted Cruz has warned that the expansion of Iranian networks with armed factions in the Sahel and North Africa could transform the region into a breeding ground for armed models similar to the Houthis in Yemen. Cruz asserts that strategically defeating Iran necessitates first dismantling its regional extensions and neutralizing traditional resistance states in its surroundings, including Algeria. Recent developments in the Sahel region reflect the intricate stakes tied to this geography, with violent clashes occurring in northern Mali between the Malian army and a militia coalition involving the separatist "Azawad Movement" and elements from the "Group for the Support of Islam and Muslims," resulting in hundreds of casualties and the capture of towns and villages by these factions following the withdrawal of Russian "Wagner" forces from the area. This conflict cannot be viewed in isolation; the region has become a theater for proxy wars intersecting with the agendas of multiple international and regional powers, all eyeing mineral resources, energy sources, and strategic trade routes. This reality links security in the Sahel to broader equations that extend from Europe’s Mediterranean shores—concerned with securing energy and migration routes—to Washington’s quest to redraw the balance of power across the entire region.
As reported by majalla.com.
