Congress moves against Polisario Front in new bill

The introduction of a new bill in the United States (U.S.) Congress seeking to designate the Polisario Front as a terrorist organization has revived international attention on the Western Sahara conflict and, more specifically, on allegations regarding the group’s ties to Iran and other regional actors.

The legislative initiative has not only re-reignited debate over the legal and political status of the Polisario Front, but has also raised broader questions about Iran’s presence and influence networks in North and West Africa.

Origins and identity of the Polisario Front

The Polisario Front, formally known as the Popular Front for the Liberation of Saguia el-Hamra and Río de Oro, was founded in 1973 in the final years of Spanish colonial rule over Western Sahara. It emerged as a Sahrawi nationalist movement advocating independence through armed resistance against Spain. Following Spain’s withdrawal in 1975, the group redirected its struggle toward securing self-determination for the Sahrawi people amid competing territorial claims in the region.

Today, the Polisario operates both as a political movement and as a governing authority for Sahrawi refugees in camps located near Tindouf, Algeria. It also proclaims itself the representative of the Sahrawi people internationally and administers institutions associated with the self-declared Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic (SADR). While the latter, established in 1976 as a government-in-exile, claims sovereignty over the entire Western Sahara territory, it exercises limited administrative control primarily in refugee camps and small liberated zones.

The SADR is a member of the African Union, a status that has long been a source of diplomatic tension between Morocco and several African states. International recognition of the SADR remains divided and politically sensitive, with dozens of countries having recognized it at various points, though many have since suspended or withdrawn recognition; most recently being Honduras.

According to recent legislative findings in the U.S. Congress, the group is described as a separatist organization operating primarily in Western Sahara and Algeria, with a long-standing claim to independence from Moroccan control. As for the United Nations (U.N.), the movement is recognized as the legitimate representative of the people of Western Sahara.

The Western Sahara conflict and regional dynamics

The conflict over Western Sahara remains one of the most protracted territorial disputes in the world. After Spain’s withdrawal, Morocco and Mauritania initially assumed control of parts of the territory, while the Polisario launched an armed campaign asserting Sahrawi sovereignty. Mauritania later withdrew, and Morocco consolidated control over most of the territory.

A U.N.-brokered ceasefire in 1991 temporarily halted active warfare and established the MINURSO mission to organize a referendum on self-determination. However, disagreements over voter eligibility and political conditions prevented the referendum from taking place, leaving the conflict unresolved.

The territory remains divided by a heavily fortified defensive structure known as the Berm, which separates Moroccan-controlled areas from Polisario-controlled zones and continues to symbolize the frozen nature of the conflict.

The U.S. congressional bill and renewed scrutiny

The current U.S. congressional initiative proposes evaluating whether the Polisario Front meets the criteria for designation as a Foreign Terrorist Organization (FTO). The bill, spearheaded by Republican congressman Ted Cruz, requires the U.S. Department of State to assess the group’s foreign relationships, including alleged cooperation with Iran and Iran-linked organizations, as well as any military or logistical support networks.

Supporters of the bill argue that the Polisario is not only a separatist movement but also a potential node in broader transnational networks involving Tehran and its regional partners. Some U.S. lawmakers have explicitly stated that the group could be used as a proxy force similar to other Iran-aligned movements in the Middle East; such as the Houthis in Yemen.

Allegations of relations between the Polisario Front and Iran

One of the most controversial dimensions of the current debate is the alleged relationship between the Polisario Front and Iran. Several reports and policy analyses cited in U.S. legislative discussions claim that the Polisario has developed connections with Iranian institutions, including the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC), as well as with Hezbollah. Indeed, since 2018 Morocco has warned against Iran’s expansionist ambitions in Western Sahara, after severing diplomatic relations with Tehran over accusations of military and financial support to separatist fighters in the Polisario Front via Hezbollah in Lebanon.

These allegations include claims of ideological contact dating back decades, as well as more recent accusations of training, logistical cooperation, and the transfer of military expertise. Some U.S. congressional findings reference alleged coordination involving supplying Iran-made combat drones, surface-to-air missiles, and “HM-16” mortar shells, and intelligence-related support. Interrelated was the Syrian Assad regime’s role in this matter. The fall of the regime revealed the depth of relations between the Polisario Front and Iran, noting that Syria at the time played the role of intermediary between the two.

At the same time, critics of these claims argue that evidence remains contested and that interpretations of such relationships vary significantly depending on political perspective. Nevertheless, the issue has become increasingly central to policy discussions in Washington, particularly as part of broader concerns about Iran’s expanding influence across Africa.

Implications of the debate

The renewed scrutiny of the Polisario Front carries significant geopolitical implications. If the group were formally designated under U.S. counterterrorism frameworks, it could face sanctions, financial restrictions, and diplomatic isolation. Such a decision would also reshape how international actors interpret the Western Sahara conflict, shifting it further from a territorial dispute toward a security and counterterrorism issue. At the same time, the debate reflects deeper divisions in international politics over how to define legitimacy, resistance movements, and state sovereignty in contested regions.

Whether or not these claims ultimately lead to formal designation, they have already reshaped how the Polisario Front is viewed in international discourse: no longer only as a party to a territorial conflict, but as a potential participant in a broader strategic contest spanning North and West Africa.