Polisario Mobilization Raises Prospects of Escalation with Morocco

The Sahara file has entered a new phase of political and military tension after the Polisario Front announced, on Tuesday, November 10, 2026, a state of general mobilization against Morocco. This move has sparked questions regarding the potential for escalation and the future of regional stability, especially as it comes days after the expiration of the mandate of the United Nations Mission for the Referendum in Western Sahara (MINURSO) and the Security Council's failure to reach a consensus on the continuation of its mission. Between the rhetoric of military alert and complex diplomatic calculations, the most pressing question remains whether the Front is moving toward a new stage of confrontation, or if it is seeking to use the announcement as a pressure tactic during a period marked by significant shifts in the conflict's trajectory.

The decision followed an emergency meeting of the Front's National Secretariat, chaired by its leader Brahim Ghali, where the Polisario leadership called on its supporters to prepare to confront what it described as dangerous military developments. The statement accused the Royal Moroccan Armed Forces of moving large numbers of soldiers, weapons, and equipment, and gathering them at various locations along the sand wall, considering these movements an escalation that threatens the security and stability of the region. However, these accusations remain a narrative issued by one party to the conflict, and no independent field data has been provided to confirm the scale, nature, or objectives of the alleged movements.

The Front's statement was not limited to the military aspect but also carried clear political and diplomatic messages, as it called on the United Nations and the African Union to intervene and issued an appeal to the peoples of the region to confront what it described as Moroccan threats. This combination of declaring mobilization and invoking international institutions reflects an attempt to link the prospects of field confrontation to the future of a political settlement, giving the decision dimensions that go beyond direct military preparation, without necessarily constituting evidence of a decision to launch large-scale combat operations.

The sensitivity of the development is heightened by what the UN Security Council witnessed on October 30, 2026, when it failed to adopt two draft resolutions to extend the MINURSO mission's mandate. Russia vetoed an American draft that proposed extending the mission's mandate for an additional year while modifying its name and the nature of its tasks, while the alternative Russian draft, which called for extending its mandate without fundamental changes, failed to receive the required nine votes. This impasse led to the expiration of the UN mandate on October 31, and the mission entering, as of November 1st, a phase of liquidating its operations and arranging the withdrawal of its personnel and equipment, after thirty-five years of presence in the region.

However, the end of MINURSO's operations does not mean the closure of the Sahara file within the United Nations or the end of political mediation efforts. UN Secretary-General António Guterres has affirmed the organization's continued commitment to supporting a just, lasting, and mutually acceptable political solution through the efforts led by his Personal Envoy, Staffan de Mistura. He also warned of the risks of escalating hostilities, calling on the concerned parties to exercise maximum restraint and avoid actions that could increase tension or undermine regional stability.

Conversely, Morocco had welcomed, in a statement issued by the Royal Cabinet on October 30, the non-renewal of the UN mission's mandate, considering it an important shift in the course of the Sahara issue. The statement reiterated the Kingdom's commitment to the ceasefire, while strictly respecting its territorial integrity, national security, and the safety of its citizens. Morocco continues to defend the autonomy initiative under its sovereignty as a framework for settlement, relying on its diplomatic actions and international partnerships. As of the preparation of this report, no official Moroccan response directly addressing the military accusations contained in the latest Polisario announcement has been issued.

From a geopolitical perspective, the mobilization announcement can be read as an attempt by the Polisario leadership to reshuffle its pressure cards following the shifts witnessed in the Security Council, and to demonstrate its ability to influence security balances at a time when the UN's operational presence on the ground has receded. The Front may be seeking through this announcement to draw international attention and restore momentum to its political demands, but this interpretation remains an analytical assessment and is not sufficient on its own to determine the actual military intentions of its leadership.

Algeria remains present in the calculations of this conflict by virtue of its political and diplomatic support for the Polisario and its hosting of the Tindouf camps, which gives any potential security deterioration broader repercussions on Maghreb balances. Nevertheless, there is no documented data that allows the mobilization announcement to be considered an Algerian decision, or evidence of Algeria's readiness to participate in a military confrontation. Distinguishing between political support and direct military decision-making remains essential to understanding the nature of regional interactions, away from unsubstantiated conclusions.

From a military perspective, the declaration of general mobilization does not automatically mean the commencement of large-scale combat operations, as transitioning to actual field mobilization requires measures related to moving combat units, strengthening supply systems, redistributing resources and equipment, and raising operational readiness levels. So far, available information does not provide sufficient independent evidence to prove that these measures have been implemented on a large scale. Furthermore, the resumption of hostilities since 2020 necessitates reading current developments in the context of existing military tension, rather than necessarily as the beginning of a new war.