U.S. Efforts in the Maghreb: A Diplomatic Push
The U.S. administration, in coordination with the United Nations, is engaged in intense diplomatic efforts aimed at resolving the long-standing Maghreb conflict before the end of the year. This initiative is based on the implementation of UN Security Council Resolution 2797, which recognizes the right of the Sahara region to self-govern under Moroccan sovereignty, while also dismantling the Tindouf camps and enabling their residents to return to their homeland. According to informed American sources, resolving this conflict, which has persisted for over fifty years, has become a strategic priority for Washington, not only due to its implications for Maghreb interests but also because of its direct connection to U.S. national security across three interconnected environments: the Middle East, Africa, and the Southern Mediterranean. These sources argue that the continuation of the conflict fosters a fertile ground for the expansion of Iranian influence throughout the region.
Strategic Repercussions and Regional Dynamics
Notably, these sources indicated a significant correlation between the commencement of negotiations between Lebanese and Israeli delegations under President Trump's auspices and the convening of closed sessions at the UN Security Council concerning the Sahara issue. The Security Council held two closed meetings on April 24 and 30, focusing on ending this dispute and dismantling the camps while disarming the Polisario Front, which American parties accuse of receiving training and arms through channels linked to Hezbollah, although these allegations have yet to be substantiated with documented evidence. Despite the differing contexts of the Arab East and North Africa, they intersect within a new strategic security framework that the U.S. is rapidly establishing. This framework is built on a central principle: limiting engagement and negotiation to legitimate states and governments while excluding non-state actors—whether armed factions with religious motivations or movements relying on alleged political legitimacy outside recognized international institutional frameworks—from major settlement equations.
In this context, Iran is viewed as a supporter of Hezbollah, suggesting that the Lebanese arena has become a pawn in a broader regional equation that does not necessarily serve purely Lebanese interests. Regarding the Western Sahara issue, certain analytical circles have raised questions about the nature of the relationship between Tehran and the Polisario Front, especially given the historical tensions between Iran and Morocco, particularly following the Iranian revolution. Ultimately, it appears that Washington prefers to engage directly with Rabat and Algiers as the original parties involved in this enduring conflict, where the echoes of the Cold War intertwine with regional power dynamics between two competing neighbors. This approach reflects a U.S. conviction that any lasting resolution must involve the directly concerned parties, avoiding the agendas of external powers, regardless of their nature.
European capitals recognize that achieving stability in Lebanon and resolving the Moroccan Sahara dispute could weaken Iranian influence across the Middle East and North Africa. Paris believes that strengthening the legitimate state in Lebanon, launching reconstruction projects, and restoring the economic, political, and tourism roles of Lebanon to their pre-1983 status will lead to a safer, more stable, and prosperous Middle East. In the Maghreb, settling the Sahara issue opens the door to reviving the historical integration project cherished by successive generations.
Informed sources indicate that reaching a settlement for the North African conflict, which has lingered for half a century without resolution, would alleviate burdens on the U.S. administration regarding more complex regional issues, primarily reducing Hezbollah's operational influence and allowing for a more independent Lebanese role within the new Middle Eastern framework that Washington is delineating.
In this regard, Republican Senator Ted Cruz 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 argues that strategically defeating Iran requires first dismantling its regional extensions and neutralizing traditional resistance states in its vicinity, including Algeria.
Recent developments in the Sahel illustrate the intertwined stakes in this geography; violent confrontations have erupted in northern Mali between the Malian army and a militia coalition comprising the separatist Azawad Movement and elements of the Group for the Support of Islam and Muslims, resulting in hundreds of casualties and the militia's control over towns and villages in the north, following the withdrawal of Russian Wagner forces from the area. This conflict cannot be isolated from its broader context; the region has become a theater for proxy battles intersecting with the agendas of multiple international and regional powers, all eyeing mineral wealth, energy resources, and strategic trade routes. This dynamic inherently links security in the Sahel with broader equations extending from the shores of the European Mediterranean, keen on securing energy and migration corridors, to Washington, which seeks to redraw the influence map across the entire region.
As reported by majalla.com.
