A bill introduced in the U.S. Senate could open the door to designating the Polisario as a terrorist organization, amid rising tensions with Iran and growing security concerns in North Africa and the Sahel. For decades, the Western Sahara conflict was treated in Washington primarily as a diplomatic issue.
Today, some members of Congress are beginning to look at it through a different lens - one that links the dispute to broader questions of security, regional stability, and Iranian influence.
Linking Polisario to Iranian Influence
On March 12, 2026, three Republican senators - Ted Cruz of Texas, Tom Cotton of Arkansas, and Rick Scott of Florida - introduced a bill in the U.S. Senate titled “Polisario Front Terrorist Designation Act of 2026. ”According to the official announcement published on Senator Cruz’s website, the legislation asks the U.S. administration to examine potential cooperation between the Polisario Front and Iranian-affiliated terrorist organizations.
If such ties are confirmed, the bill could lead to the designation of the Polisario as a Foreign Terrorist Organization under U.S. law. At this stage, the bill does not automatically designate the Polisario as a terrorist organization. Instead, it requires the U.S. State Department to produce a detailed report on potential cooperation between the movement and Iranian-linked groups over the past decade.
The investigation would examine whether the Polisario has received or provided military assistance, weapons systems, drones, or intelligence support through intermediaries connected to Iran, including Lebanese Hezbollah. If such cooperation is established, the U.S. administration would be required to consider sanctions and initiate the legal process for a terrorist designation.
Morocco’s Diplomatic Break With Iran
The debate unfolding in Washington echoes a long-standing diplomatic dispute between Morocco and Iran. Morocco has severed diplomatic relations with Tehran several times, notably during the 2009 Bahrain crisis, when Rabat accused Iran of interfering in the affairs of the Gulf kingdom.
The most consequential rupture occurred in 2018, when Morocco cut diplomatic ties again, accusing Iran and Hezbollah of providing military support to the Polisario.According to Moroccan officials, Hezbollah operatives had allegedly trained Polisario fighters and facilitated the transfer of weapons through Iran’s embassy in Algeria. Tehran and Hezbollah have denied those accusations, but since then Rabat has increasingly framed the Western Sahara dispute within the broader context of countering growing Iranian regional influence.
Iran’s Expanding Regional Confrontational Posture
The debate now emerging in Washington comes at a moment of heightened confrontation between Iran and the US as well as several key U.S. partners in the Middle East. In recent years, tensions have repeatedly escalated through drone and missile attacks targeting energy infrastructure, shipping lanes, and strategic ports across the Gulf region.
Oil facilities and maritime logistics hubs have been particularly exposed. Attacks affecting installations linked to global energy supply chains have periodically disrupted markets and underscored the vulnerability of critical trade routes. For U.S. policymakers and security analysts, these incidents illustrate Iran’s growing capacity to project asymmetric power well beyond its borders.
Analysts increasingly describe Tehran’s approach as a networked strategy of proxy influence, relying on alliances with non-state armed groups that operate across several conflict zones. The model is well established in the Middle East. Groups such as Hezbollah in Lebanon, Shiite militias in Iraq, and the Houthis in Yemen have enabled Iran to exert pressure on regional rivals while maintaining a degree of strategic ambiguity.
In Washington’s policy community, concern is now growing that this model could gradually expand into other regions where political instability creates opportunities for external actors. North Africa and the Sahel, already grappling with insurgencies, fragile governance structures, and shifting geopolitical alignments, are increasingly viewed as potential arenas for broader strategic competition.
Within this evolving framework, some members of Congress have begun to reassess conflicts that were previously treated primarily as diplomatic disputes. The Western Sahara conflict is one of them. For lawmakers who see Iranian influence as a global security challenge, the question is no longer confined to the Middle East. It is whether Tehran might seek to exploit existing tensions in other regions by cultivating relationships with armed movements capable of influencing local balances of power.
It is precisely this concern that now informs the debate on Capitol Hill. The bill introduced by Senators Cruz, Cotton, and Scott reflects a growing view among some U.S. policymakers that the Polisario should be examined not only as a political actor in a territorial dispute, but also through the lens of potential security risks linked to Iran’s broader regional aggression.
Algeria’s Central Role and the Diplomatic Track
Any shift in U.S. policy toward the Polisario would inevitably reverberate across regional diplomacy, particularly in relation to Algeria. Since the creation of the Polisario in the 1970s, Algiers has been the movement’s principal political and diplomatic backer and a key actor shaping the regional balance surrounding the Western Sahara conflict. For decades, Algerian support has been central to the diplomatic and military equation of the dispute, making any potential U.S. move, such as a terrorist designation of the Polisario, an issue with broader implications.
At the same time, diplomatic efforts to resolve the conflict have continued under the auspices of the United Nations. The political process is formally led by the UN Secretary-General’s Personal Envoy for Western Sahara who has been attempting to revive negotiations among four key parties: Morocco, the Polisario, Algeria, and Mauritania. Over the past few years, discussions have taken place in Europe, particularly in Spain, as well as consultations involving Washington.
Spain, as the former colonial power in Western Sahara, has periodically served as an informal diplomatic venue, while the United States has also played a growing role as well. American officials, including Massad Boulos, have supported diplomatic initiatives aimed at encouraging direct engagement between the parties. These efforts reflect a broader interest in Washington in stabilizing the region and preventing the conflict from becoming a source of prolonged geopolitical tension.
In diplomatic circles, there is increasing recognition that the Western Sahara dispute cannot remain frozen indefinitely. For some policymakers in Washington, resolving the conflict has become part of a broader strategy to reinforce stability in North Africa and the Sahel. The emergence of concerns about potential Iranian influence in the region, an issue now raised explicitly in congressional debates, adds a new layer of urgency to these efforts.
Within this evolving context, negotiations remain formally ongoing, even as tensions rise. Morocco, the Polisario, Algeria, and Mauritania continue to participate in the UN-led process aimed at reaching a solution. Yet the growing involvement of external strategic considerations - from Iran to regional security in the Sahel - suggests that the Western Sahara conflict is entering a new phase, where diplomacy, security concerns, and global geopolitics are becoming increasingly intertwined.
The bill introduced on March 12, 2026, still faces a long legislative path. It must pass through Senate committees and potentially be approved by both chambers of Congress before reaching the president’s desk. But in Washington, the introduction of a bill can itself signal a shift in political thinking. For the first time in years, the Western Sahara conflict is being debated in parts of the U.S. Congress not only as a diplomatic dispute, but as a potential component of a broader geopolitical contest involving Iran, regional security in the Sahel, and the stability of American allies in North Africa.
The debate, it seems, is only beginning.
(Originally published on Visegrad24’s partner page: MiddleEast24)
