A report issued by the American research center Washington Institute for Near East Policy highlights a significant development in the Western Sahara dossier: the threat of U.S. sanctions against Algeria over its arms procurement from Russia reportedly played a role in encouraging Algiers to engage more actively in the negotiation process. The analysis presents this shift not as an isolated event, but as the outcome of broader geopolitical dynamics shaped by tensions between Washington and Moscow and the increasing centrality of security leverage in regional diplomacy.
According to the report, discussions within the U.S. Congress regarding potential sanctions under the CAATSA framework — in response to Algeria’s defense transactions with Russia — sent a strong political signal. That signal introduced a new variable into Algeria’s strategic calculations, linking its military partnerships to broader diplomatic and regional considerations. The institute argues that the possibility of sanctions was not merely theoretical but represented a tangible pressure tool capable of influencing foreign policy choices.
The report further notes that Algeria, which for years maintained that it was not a direct party to the dispute and positioned itself as a regional observer, adopted a different posture by participating in the Madrid talks initiated under American mediation. This participation marks a meaningful shift, as it implicitly acknowledges that any viable solution requires the involvement of actors that exert real political and strategic influence on the ground — particularly given Algeria’s declared support for the Polisario Front and the presence of refugee camps in Tindouf on its territory.
The institute emphasizes that Algeria’s inclusion in the talks was not optional but structurally necessary. The Polisario Front relies heavily on Algerian political, logistical, and diplomatic support, making it difficult to imagine a sustainable settlement that excludes Algiers from the negotiating table. The American approach therefore seeks to gather Morocco, Algeria, Mauritania, and the Polisario within a multilateral framework directly supervised by Washington, reflecting a U.S. ambition to act as an active mediator rather than merely relying on traditional UN mechanisms.
The analysis also references UN Security Council Resolution 2797, which welcomed U.S. readiness to host and facilitate multilateral consultations among the concerned parties. This endorsement provides international legitimacy to the ongoing process and situates the American initiative within the broader framework of international law, while enabling a more pragmatic and step-by-step diplomatic approach.
Regarding Algeria’s concerns, the study underlines border issues as a particularly sensitive matter in its strategic thinking. Any potential settlement based on Morocco’s autonomy proposal would, according to the report, require clear assurances that Algeria’s borders and security interests would remain unaffected. This explains the cautious nature of Algeria’s public engagement while still participating in the talks.
Moreover, the confidential nature of the Madrid negotiations reflects the complexity of the file and the need for gradual dialogue. No official outcomes have been announced so far, indicating that discussions remain focused on building preliminary understandings among the parties. Nevertheless, international reporting and political signals suggest that the most frequently referenced framework remains enhanced autonomy under Moroccan sovereignty — particularly since the UN Security Council resolution adopted on October 31, 2025 encouraged negotiations on the basis of the Moroccan proposal, describing it as the most realistic and implementable option.
In conclusion, the report links geopolitical leverage — especially pressure related to Russian arms cooperation — to shifts in Algeria’s positioning within the settlement process. The Sahara issue thus emerges as a space where security interests, diplomatic bargaining, and global strategic competition intersect. The American strategy appears oriented toward managing all stakeholders within a negotiated framework rather than imposing a unilateral solution, aiming instead to gradually build conditions for a sustainable political compromise.
