A bipartisan group of congresspeople are set to introduce a bill in The House of Representatives that would designate the Polisario Front a “terrorist organization.” The ramifications of this are a lot more significant than it might at first seem.
The Polisario Front is a Sahrawi organization that has existed since 1973. Its aim to is to establish Sahrawi sovereignty over the territory of Western Sahara, which has been under occupation first by Spain and, since 1975, by Morocco.
Western Sahara is often referred to as “Africa’s last colony.” Spain colonized the territory in 1884 and partitioned the territory and relinquished control over it in 1975, leading to one part being occupied by Morocco and the other by Mauritania. In 1979, Mauritania withdrew in the face of Sahrawi resistance, backed by Algeria, and Morocco occupied the entire territory, which it has held ever since.
The United States and Israel are the only countries in the world to recognize Moroccan sovereignty over Western Sahara. The reasons are obvious.
What is this bill?
The new bill was announced by Rep. Josh Gottheimer (D-NJ), one of the most far-right hawks on Israel in Congress. It calls on the Trump administration to investigate whether Iran is arming and otherwise supporting the Polisario Front and, if so, to add it to the list of Designated Terrorist Organizations.
The bill is being introduced by Gottheimer and Rep. Ronny Jackson (R-TX) as a companion bill to one that Ted Cruz (R-TX) introduced in the Senate in March.
A earlier House bill introduced last year by Joe Wilson (R-SC) was very similar, but neither it nor Cruz’s bill in the Senate has gathered much momentum since they were introduced back in March. Wilson’s bill did get two Democrats to sign on as co-sponsors, one of whom will not be seeking re-election, but the Gottheimer-Jackson bill is coming in with six co-sponsors, evenly split between Democrats and Republicans (Reps. Claudia Tenney (R-NY), Greg Landsman (D-OH), Don Bacon (R-NE) and Jared Moskowitz (D-FL), in addition to Gottheimer and Jackson).
Clearly, the hope is to inject new life into this legislation by presenting it as a fully bipartisan effort, rather than a Republican one that got a couple of Democrats on board.
The chances of success are slim. As we will see, there are pragmatic reasons for more thoughtful legislators to oppose this bill, and Western Sahara is not at the top of anyone’s agenda.
Still, the fact that this legislation is up at all, in addition to Washington’s shameful recognition of Moroccan sovereignty over a territory it clearly has no legitimate claim to, is not only a bad direction for American foreign policy; it threatens to set very ugly national and global precedents.
The Polisario Front is the legitimate representative of the Sahrawi People
The Polisario Front is a resistance movement as well as a political one. Unlike outright terrorist organizations like al-Qaeda—which was never any kind of governing body—or ISIL—which became a governing body when it captured territory, a step that helped lead to its decline—the Polisario Front has always been a political organization with an armed wing.
That sets it apart even from groups like Hamas or Hezbollah, which began as resistance groups and then moved, sometimes reluctantly, into politics.
The Polisario Front was formed much like a shadow government, even though, to free the Western Sahara from colonial rule, it almost immediately took up military activities.
The United Nations has recognized the Polisario Front as the legitimate representative of the Sahrawi people since 1979. That grants the group entrance to international forums and access to inter-governmental diplomacy, including with the United States.
U.S. sanctions would eliminate the ability of future U.S. administrations to work with the Polisario Front to chart a more productive, just, and hopeful course in Western Sahara. Moreover, it would mean crippling the Polisario Front’s ability to gather support from around the world, as it would hamper their ability to conduct financial transactions.
It could also lead to other countries taking similar steps, which would be deeply problematic for a Sahrawi movement that is already having difficulty drawing enough attention and support to its cause.
Is there a case for these bills?
Morocco has long accused Iran of supporting the Polisario Front, but the accusation itself raises significant questions.
Before we even consider the merits of the accusation, what can we say is wrong with Iran supporting the Sahrawi struggle for freedom?
Is it illegitimate to support a group’s struggle to end occupation and attain their freedom? Surely anyone who supports Israel would have to say yes. But this, of course, leads to an obvious question: would you then consider French aid to the American revolution 250 years ago equally wrong and deserving of punishment by a self-appointed global police officer not directly involved in the conflict? Few indeed are the pro-Israel voices who would agree with that.
Any ethical examination must conclude that a people living under foreign occupation has the right to resist that occupation, including by violent means. That applies to the Sahrawi just as much as it does to the Palestinians.
Is it that any Iranian action is considered illegal merely by virtue of Iran undertaking it? That’s the argument these legislators and their cohorts at the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies are essentially making. Iran cannot support anyone without that support being grounds for sanctions.
Indeed, the text of Cruz’s bill (the new House bill is not yet available) merely asks about support from Iran, not Iranian support for any criminal act. Cruz’s bill criminalizes all “cooperation,” not merely any cooperation in an act of purported “terrorism.”
The Polisario Front has been accused of criminal acts, and, over the course of 53 years of resistance, it is certain they have been guilty of some, particularly in the 1970s and 80s. But there is no evidence that they have targeted civilians in recent decades, though there have been several incidents of civilians being harmed or even killed in Polisario Front attacks.
This is about criminalizing liberation struggles, which, of course, is why Western Sahara matters at all to Israel and the United States.
It is also about making Iran an untouchable for both state and non-state actors. Merely working with Iran is grounds for sanctions, by current standards. The hypocrisy is blatantly obvious; all one must do is compare Iran’s alleged support for the Polisario Front to the United Arab Emirates’ support for the Rapid Support Forces (RSF) in Sudan.
Where are the bills to sanction the UAE for what is clearly the arming of a group responsible for massive war crimes, crimes against humanity, and, yes, genocide? Where is the outrage over a U.S. ally, using funds its partnership with the United States helps to generate, funding such barbarity as we regularly see committed by the RSF?
Of course, we will see no such outrage, much less legislation to stop it, despite the fact that even Morocco couldn’t possibly make the case that the Polisario Front’s actions, even viewed in the worst possible light, are at all similar to the RSF’s. If we did, how could we also allow Israel to continue its behavior?
And then there is the question of whether Iran is involved at all.
Iran, naturally, denies it has offered any arms, intelligence, or other strategic support to the Polisario Front. Even in Cruz’s bill, there are no specific, material allegations or examples cited to support that contention. The substance of the accusations rests almost entirely on Moroccan accusations.
Yet, there is scant evidence of Iran’s involvement. As recently as October 2025, the United Kingdom expressed serious skepticism about Iranian involvement in Western Sahara, even going so far as on member of the House of Lords stating that, “the UK has not seen evidence of Iranian support for the Polisario Front. However, we continue to monitor Iranian activity in the region.”
Do we need to worry about these bills?
The bottom line is that these bills face an uphill battle. But the fact that it is being pressed now by prominent pro-Israel voices in the House should be an alarm bell for the longer term.
We’ll know more about where things stand once Gottheimer and Jackson introduce their bill. At that point, if we see significant new co-sponsors, it will be a strong sign that the bill has life.
But regardless, this is only one step in a longer battle. Morocco knows that Israel and its supporters have a stake in seeing its occupation of Western Sahara legitimized. The recent decision by Rabat to agree to join in with some imagined future Gaza “international force,” which was approved earlier this week by Israel (whom, we should never forget continues to have final say over what happens anywhere in Gaza or the West Bank) is another step in bringing the occupying cousins together.
Very likely, that decision to take part in the attempted pacification of Gaza is what spurred so many of Israel’s American partners to suddenly turn their attention back to Western Sahara and the dispossession of the Sahrawi.
This is part of a single process to normalize occupation, dispossession, and the denial of rights to stateless people. The Sahrawi and the Palestinians both face the prospect of endless domination by an occupying power, even if the occupiers have different ambitions for their respective occupied territories. You can’t oppose one without opposing the other, and we have all neglected Western Sahara and the Sahrawi for too long.