US Representatives Josh Gottheimer and Ronny Jackson introduced the “Polisario Front Terrorist Designation Act” to Congress on July 30, calling on the State Department to designate the Polisario Front as a foreign terrorist organization.

The bill, drafted by Gottheimer of New Jersey and Jackson of Texas, alleges that the Polisario Front receives support from Iran and poses a threat to US national security.

Gottheimer said groups linked to the Iranian government were seeking to open a new front against the US and its allies and argued that the Polisario Front had become one of the instruments used for that purpose.

However, Gottheimer also acknowledged that such cooperation between Iran and the Polisario Front has not yet been verified.

“This bipartisan bill will ensure that, once such cooperation is confirmed, US counterterrorism sanctions are fully applied against the Polisario Front,” Gottheimer said.

The proposal follows similar legislation introduced in Congress in 2025, including an initiative by Republican Senator Ted Cruz.

Polisario Front backs Western Sahara independence

The Polisario Front advocates the creation of an independent state in Western Sahara, which is largely under Moroccan control. The movement was founded in May 1973 to fight Spanish colonial rule in the territory.

After Spain withdrew from the territory in 1976, the Polisario Front proclaimed the Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic, whose government-in-exile is based in Algeria. Morocco soon took control of most of Western Sahara and maintains that the territory is part of its sovereign land.

The name Polisario is derived from the Spanish title “Popular Front for the Liberation of Saguia el-Hamra and Rio de Oro.”

US President Donald Trump recognized Morocco’s sovereignty claim over Western Sahara in 2020 in exchange for Rabat normalizing relations with Israel under the Abraham Accords.

France, the United Kingdom, Germany, the Netherlands and Spain later backed Morocco’s position on the territory.

Morocco, one of Washington’s major non-NATO allies, has continued expanding its military and political ties with both Washington and Tel Aviv. According to the Hudson Institute, designating the Polisario Front as a foreign terrorist organization could further strengthen the US-Morocco alliance.

Morocco sent troops to the Gaza international force

In July, Morocco became the first Arab and African country to commit troops to the International Stabilization Force that is expected to operate in Gaza under Trump’s “Peace Board” administration.

Rabat formally signed the agreement governing its participation in the force on July 15. The International Stabilization Force is expected to operate in coordination with the Israeli military.

A pro-Palestinian Moroccan activist criticized the country’s role in the force, saying: “I do not know what role Morocco will play other than disarming Hamas and perhaps even overseeing the recolonization of Gaza under the US-Israel axis.”

Morocco has continued strengthening military and security ties with Israel since signing the Abraham Accords.

Israeli troops openly participated in Morocco’s annual African Lion exercise in May 2025. The Israeli flag was displayed for the first time during the opening ceremony of the exercise, jointly organized by the Rabat government and US Africa Command and involving about 10,000 troops from more than 40 countries.

Ceuta and Melilla dispute also in focus

The Moroccan government was reported last week to have organized the movement of tens of thousands of Moroccan male migrants toward Ceuta, the Spanish territory on the North African coast.

A US congressional budget report adopted in July also described Ceuta and Melilla for the first time as Spanish-administered cities “located on Moroccan territory” and “long claimed by Morocco.”

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu had called for Spain to be punished for attempting to block the delivery of US weapons to the Israeli military for use in operations in Gaza. The migrant influx toward Ceuta was welcomed by a significant portion of Israeli social media users.

Responsible Statecraft wrote that the Moroccan government may have resorted to “migration blackmail” to pressure European countries. The publication added: “This time, however, the primary beneficiaries appear to be Israel and the US.”

Türkiye, Saudi Arabia and Pakistan are expected to sign a joint defence agreement in Saudi Arabia on Friday.

Two regional sources with direct knowledge of the matter told Reuters that Türkiye, Saudi Arabia and Pakistan would sign a joint defence agreement in Saudi Arabia on Friday.

Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman, President Recep Tayyip Erdogan and Pakistani Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif will meet in the Saudi port city as regional powers seek to strengthen security ties during the war with Iran.

Regional powers are seeking to bolster security ties amid conditions created by the US-Israeli war against Iran, which has also drawn in Gulf states and disrupted maritime shipping through the Strait of Hormuz and the Red Sea.

Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman is expected to meet President Recep Tayyip Erdogan and Pakistani Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif in Jeddah on the Red Sea coast.

Pakistani Prime Minister Sharif and Pakistan’s Chief of Army Staff Asim Munir arrived in the country for a visit running from Thursday to Saturday, while Erdogan is expected to travel to Saudi Arabia on Friday, according to the Turkish presidency.

A senior Turkish intelligence source told CNN-News18 that all the core terms of the alliance had been fully prepared, communicated to the parties and accepted by the leaders of Pakistan, Saudi Arabia and Türkiye.

Since Pakistan and Saudi Arabia signed a mutual defence agreement last year, there has been discussion that the two countries wanted to bring other states in West Asia and South Asia into the defence bloc.

Alliance to draw on Saudi finance, Turkish tech, Pakistani nukes

According to CNN-News18, the Pakistan-Saudi Arabia-Türkiye agreement is a natural extension of the Saudi Arabia-Pakistan mutual defence agreement announced last year.

As with the Saudi Arabia-Pakistan agreement, the trilateral alliance will draw on the different strengths of each member state to create an integrated security network.

CNN-News18 said Saudi Arabia would contribute its financial power and regional influence; Türkiye would provide advanced military technology, particularly drones, along with a NATO-standard defence industry infrastructure; and Pakistan would contribute its nuclear capability and battle-experienced military.

The alliance will include joint military exercises, technology transfers, defence industry production and intelligence-sharing.

Under the Saudi Arabia-Pakistan mutual defence agreement, Pakistan had agreed to deploy about 25,000 troops to Saudi Arabia, backed by armoured units, artillery, infantry and rocket forces, as well as two air force squadrons and two naval squadrons. The deployment was said to be intended to contribute to the kingdom’s security, conduct joint operations and train Saudi forces in return for $10 billion in Saudi investment.

In an extensive analytical interview conducted for the Harici digital news platform, retired Brigadier General Professor Fahri Erenel provided a comprehensive assessment of shifting global security dynamics, the structural limitations of NATO, regional conflict vectors in the Middle East, and the strategic calculus governing US, Israeli, and European defense postures.

Erenel, who serves as a faculty member at Istanbul Aydin University, argued that the persistent turbulence across the Middle East—marked by ongoing hostilities involving Israel, Iran, and various non-state actors—must be understood through the lens of domestic economic imperatives and political survival strategies, particularly within the United States. He noted that despite diplomatic interventions and post-summit declarations, the underlying drivers of regional instability remain largely unaddressed.

“Trump is executing a wartime economy strategy”

Evaluating the strategic behavior of Washington and the vacillating rhetoric surrounding potential military interventions, Erenel asserted that the US administration under Donald Trump is leveraging controlled geopolitical tension to stimulate domestic economic output. Drawing explicitly on international political economy theory, Erenel stated, “As Charles Kindleberger clearly articulated, maintaining global primacy carries immense costs. The US has sustained the burden of being a dominant power for decades, but the conflict with Iran revealed a critical shift: traditional allies did not immediately offer unqualified support to Trump’s military calls.”

Erenel contended that the frequent shifts in US messaging—alternating between aggressive threats of bombardment and sudden overtures toward diplomatic resolution—serve specific domestic market functions. “Trump is executing a wartime economy strategy,” Erenel stated. “By keeping markets on edge, talking up severe military action one day and impending negotiations the next, the administration influences global energy markets and drives up oil prices. This is a calculated attempt to address a massive US current account deficit approaching $40 billion and to spur domestic employment ahead of upcoming elections.”

Comparing current US industrial policy to the economic mobilization observed prior to direct US entry into the Second World War, Erenel emphasized that heightened global security risks directly benefit defense contractors and key industrial sectors. “During the World War years, American industry achieved full employment by supplying European belligerents long before deploying its own troops,” he explained. “Today, we see defense enterprise valuations surging alongside selective automotive and high-tech manufacturing partnerships focused on artificial intelligence and advanced air defense systems. The continuous consumption of munitions in regional theaters forces defense supply chains to run at maximum capacity, creating jobs and driving domestic spending within the US economy.”

“European nations face severe logistical and structural barriers”

Addressing the evolution of transatlantic security structures, Erenel expressed deep skepticism regarding the operational viability of initiatives dubbed “NATO 3.0” and European strategic autonomy. While recent alliance summits highlighted a transition from qualitative readiness toward quantitative buildup, Erenel argued that European defense integration remains severely constrained by deep-seated structural fragmentation, industrial dependency, and inadequate infrastructure.

“The concept of NATO 3.0 represents a narrative shift rather than a fundamental realignment of military capability,” Erenel said. “European nations face severe logistical and structural barriers that prevent the rapid deployment of heavy forces. For instance, while key allies like the US, Germany, and the UK rely on specific main battle tank platforms, European NATO members collectively operate 14 distinct tank variants utilizing up to 168 different types of ammunition. Standardizing logistics across such a fragmented inventory is an extraordinary challenge.”

Erenel further highlighted critical physical infrastructure deficits across the European continent, noting that bridges and transit corridors built for lighter vehicle loads cannot support modern 60-ton armored formations. “During recent exercises, heavy units encountered immediate bottlenecks at cross-border transit points, such as the German-Hungarian frontier, simply because the underlying infrastructure could not support their tonnage,” he observed. “European proposals to allocate a fraction of defense budgets to dual-use infrastructure reflect a belated realization that advanced hardware is ineffective if it cannot be mobilized. Given these constraints, together with the political refusal of several member states to drastically increase spending, Europe will remain heavily dependent on US military capacity for the foreseeable future.”

In contrast, Erenel pointed to Türkiye’s established manufacturing base and alignment with NATO standardized cataloging since 1952. He noted that as European stockpiles of critical ordnance—such as 155mm artillery shells—dwindle due to sustained high-intensity warfare in Eastern Europe, Turkish industrial capacity stands out as a vital operational asset for alliance readiness.

“Washington seeks a low-intensity, controlled escalation strategy”

Turning to the confrontation between the United States and Iran, Erenel detailed the operational constraints preventing a full-scale ground invasion of Iranian territory, while warning that targeted actions could focus on critical peripheral vulnerabilities. “A full-scale ground campaign penetrating into the Iranian heartland is militarily cost-prohibitive and politically untenable for Washington,” Erenel stated. “An airborne or amphibious assault toward major population centers would result in catastrophic casualties, far exceeding acceptable thresholds for the American public.”

Instead, Erenel outlined a strategy of sustained pressure directed at Iran’s economically and ethnically sensitive border regions. “Washington seeks a low-intensity, controlled escalation strategy designed to maintain psychological and economic friction,” he explained. “If external forces seek to project physical control, the primary axis of vulnerability lies in regions like Khuzestan, the Strait of Hormuz periphery, and Sistan-Baluchestan. The Sistan-Baluchestan corridor, bordering Pakistan and Afghanistan, represents Iran’s exposed flank. Operating in tandem with internal socio-economic pressures and active insurgent elements such as PJAK in the northwest, selective external pressure aims to fragment state coherence without requiring deep territorial occupation.”

Erenel added that sustained economic isolation, combined with targeted strikes on energy infrastructure and dual-use logistics, exacerbates internal political divisions within Tehran. He noted visible friction between hardline factions, notably within the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC), and moderate elements favoring diplomatic compromise. However, he emphasized that hardline security structures maintain decisive operational control over strategic decision-making.

“Israel is pursuing a peripheral containment strategy”

Evaluating the diplomatic and military posture of Israel, Erenel dismissed the notion of a fundamental strategic rift between Washington and Tel Aviv, characterizing public disagreements as tactical theater designed for domestic audiences. “The apparent friction between top US officials and Israeli leadership reflects political maneuvering rather than a structural divergence,” Erenel asserted. “Both leaderships are managing precarious domestic political landscapes ahead of major electoral cycles.”

Erenel warned of expanding Israeli strategic activity in the Eastern Mediterranean, specifically highlighting Cyprus as a central pillar of Tel Aviv’s long-term security matrix. “Israel is pursuing a peripheral containment strategy, expanding its operational depth far beyond its immediate land borders,” Erenel stated. “Historical and geopolitical imperatives drive Tel Aviv’s focus on Cyprus. Because Israel lacks geographical depth and possesses limited maritime forces relative to regional landmasses, it views the island of Cyprus as an essential forward operating node.”

Erenel detailed the steady accumulation of Israeli real estate acquisitions, intelligence installations, and military training agreements across both the northern and southern sectors of Cyprus. “Through significant land purchases, infrastructure investments, and joint security arrangements, Israel is securing a forward position in the Eastern Mediterranean,” he stated. “The installation of advanced radar systems on the Troodos Mountains and joint intelligence initiatives with the Greek Cypriot administration directly impact regional equilibrium. From a strategic standpoint, this alignment—linking Israel, Greece, and the Greek Cypriot administration under the umbrella of shared opposition to Ankara—constitutes a deliberate attempt to encircle Türkiye from the south.”

Concluding his assessment, Erenel emphasized that Türkiye must take proactive countermeasures to safeguard its maritime rights and military presence in the Eastern Mediterranean. He urged the formal adoption of comprehensive maritime domain legislation and called for the continued enhancement of Turkish naval and air capabilities based in the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus. “Türkiye remains the indispensable power in the region,” Erenel concluded. “In response to shifting alliances and forward deployments in Cyprus, maintaining robust forward defenses, establishing permanent naval infrastructure, and protecting the integrity of the Mavi Vatan (Blue Homeland) framework are absolute strategic necessities.”