Morocco’s Atlantic gambit: linking restive Sahel to ocean

1 / 5
Work takes place during the construction of the Dakhla Atlantic Port in the Western Sahara on May 26, 2025. (AFP)
2 / 5
Work takes place during the construction of the Dakhla Atlantic Port in the Western Sahara on May 26, 2025. (AFP)
3 / 5
Work takes place during the construction of the Dakhla Atlantic Port in the Western Sahara on May 26, 2025. (AFP)
4 / 5
Work takes place during the construction of the Dakhla Atlantic Port in the Western Sahara on May 26, 2025. (AFP)
5 / 5
Work takes place during the construction of the Dakhla Atlantic Port in the Western Sahara on May 26, 2025. (AFP)
Short Url
Updated 29 June 2025
Follow

Morocco’s Atlantic gambit: linking restive Sahel to ocean

  • The “Atlantic Initiative” promises ocean access to Mali, Burkina Faso and Niger through a new $1.3-billion port in the Western Sahara
  • But the project remains fraught with challenges at a time when military coups in the Sahel states have brought new leaderships to power

EL ARGOUB: A planned trade corridor linking the landlocked Sahel to the Atlantic is at the heart of an ambitious Moroccan project to tackle regional instability and consolidate its grip on disputed Western Sahara.

The “Atlantic Initiative” promises ocean access to Mali, Burkina Faso and Niger through a new $1.3-billion port in the former Spanish colony claimed by the pro-independence Polisario Front but largely controlled by Morocco.

But the project remains fraught with challenges at a time when military coups in the Sahel states have brought new leaderships to power intent on overturning longstanding political alignments following years of militant violence.

The Moroccan initiative aims to “substantially transform the economy of these countries” and “the region,” said King Mohammed VI when announcing it in late 2023.

The “Dakhla Atlantic” port, scheduled for completion at El Argoub by 2028, also serves Rabat’s goal of cementing its grip on Western Sahara after US President Donald Trump recognized its sovereignty over the territory in 2020.

Morocco’s regional rival Algeria backs the Polisario but has seen its relations with Mali, Burkina Faso and Niger fray in recent months after the downing a Malian drone.

Military coups over the past five years have seen the three Sahel states pivot toward Russia in a bid to restore their sovereignty and control over natural resources after decades within the sphere of influence of their former colonial ruler France.

French troops were forced to abandon their bases in the three countries, ending their role in the fight against militants who have found sanctuary in the vast semi-arid region on the southern edge of the Sahara.

After both the African Union and West African bloc ECOWAS imposed economic sanctions on the new juntas, Morocco emerged as an early ally, with Niger calling the megaproject “a godsend.”

“Morocco was one of the first countries where we found understanding at a time when ECOWAS and other countries were on the verge of waging war against us,” Niger’s Foreign Minister Bakary Yaou Sangare said in April during a visit to Rabat alongside his Malian and Burkinabe counterparts.

The Sahel countries established a bloc of their own — the Alliance of Sahel States (AES) — in September 2023 but have remained dependent on the ports of ECOWAS countries like Benin, Ghana, Ivory Coast and Togo.

Rising tensions with the West African bloc could restrict their access to those ports, boosting the appeal of the alternative trade outlet being offered by Rabat.

Morocco has been seeking to position itself as a middleman between Europe and the Sahel states, said Beatriz Mesa, a professor at the International University of Rabat.

With militant networks like Al-Qaeda and the Daesh group striking ever deeper into sub-Saharan Africa, the security threat has intensified since the departure of French-led troops.

Morocco was now “profiting from these failures by placing itself as a reliable Global South partner,” Mesa said.

Its initiative has won the backing of key actors including the United States, France and the Gulf Arab states, who could provide financial support, according to specialist journal Afrique(s) en mouvement.

But for now the proposed trade corridor is little more than an aspiration, with thousands of kilometers (many hundreds of miles) of desert road-building needed to turn it into a reality.

“There are still many steps to take,” since a road and rail network “doesn’t exist,” said Seidik Abba, head of the Sahel-focused think tank CIRES.

Rida Lyammouri of the Policy Center for the New South said the road route from Morocco through Western Sahara to Mauritania is “almost complete,” even though it has been targeted by Polisario fighters.

Abdelmalek Alaoui, head of the Moroccan Institute for Strategic Intelligence, said it could cost as much as $1 billion to build a land corridor through Mauritania, Mali and Niger all the way to Chad, 3,100 kilometers (1,900 miles) to the east.

And even if the construction work is completed, insecurity is likely to pose a persistent threat to the corridor’s viability, he said.


Trump officials say Israel’s plans helped lead the US into Iran war

Updated 4 sec ago
Follow

Trump officials say Israel’s plans helped lead the US into Iran war

WASHINGTON: The Trump administration and its allies in Congress presented a shifting new justification Monday for the US attack on Iran, with House Speaker Mike Johnson suggesting that the White House believed Israel was determined to act on its own, leaving the president with a “very difficult decision.”
The Republican was speaking late Monday after a classified briefing at the Capitol, the first for congressional leaders since the start of the war, a joint US-Israel military campaign that killed Iran’s Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei and has quickly spiraled into a widening Middle East conflict. Hundreds have died, including at least six US military service personnel.
Johnson said the attack on Iran was a “defensive operation” because Israel was ready to act against Iran, “with or without American support.” He said President Donald Trump and his team determined that Iran would immediately retaliate against US personnel and assets.
“The commander in chief has said this is going to be an operation that is short in duration,” Johnson said. “We certainly hope that’s true.”
The remarkable shift in the Trump administration’s stated rationale comes as the hostilities deepen and widen across the region. The president himself estimated the war could drag on for weeks. The administration plans to seek supplemental funds from Congress to support the military effort, lawmakers said, in stark contrast to the president’s America First campaign not to entangle the US in actions abroad.
Secretary of State Marco Rubio said the “hardest hits are yet to come” as the US is determined to continue attacking Iran for as long as it takes with an “even more punishing” next phase in the war.
Rubio described what was essentially a potentially ripple effect that he said posed an “imminent threat” to the US
“We knew that there was going to be an Israeli action,” he said. “And we knew that if we didn’t preemptively go after them before they launched those attacks, we would suffer higher casualties.”
Rubio said that while the US would like to see the Iranian people rise up and be rid of the regime, “that’s not the objective,” he said. “The objective of this mission is to make sure they don’t have these weapons that can threaten us and our allies in the region.”
Trump’s shifting rationale sparks detractors
Rubio, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth and other administration officials delivered the classified briefing as Congress weighs a war powers resolution that would restrain Trump’s ability to keep waging war without approval from the House and Senate.
Trump himself, speaking at the White House, laid out four objectives for the war, saying US forces are out to destroy Iran’s missile capabilities, wipe out its naval capacity, stop the country from obtaining a nuclear weapon and ensure “that the Iranian regime cannot continue to arm, fund and direct terrorist armies outside of their borders.”
“This was our last, best chance to strike — what we’re doing right now — and eliminate the intolerable threats posed by this sick and sinister regime,” Trump said.
Trump met repeatedly with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu as they sought to curb Iran’s nuclear program, including last month at the White House.
Hegseth earlier Monday vowed this is not an “endless war,” even as he warned more US casualties are likely in the weeks ahead.
But Sen. Mark Warner, the top Democrat on the Intelligence Committee, said: “There was no imminent threat to the United States of America by the Iranians. There was a threat to Israel.”
Warner said he has now heard four or five stated reasons for the attack. He demanded that Trump “come before Congress, and for that matter, the American people,” to make his case for war — and the exit plan.
Several Democrats delivered blistering speeches against the war. “Are we now such an enfeebled nation that Israel decides when we go to war?” said Sen. Jeff Merkley of Oregon, voice rising.
War powers as a check on presidential power
The moment is a defining one for Congress, which alone has the authority under the US Constitution to declare war, and for the Republican president, who has consistently seized power during his second term with his own executive reach.
Trump took the nation to war at a particularly vulnerable time, as the Department of Homeland Security is operating without routine funds because of a standoff with Democrats over their demands to restrain his immigration enforcement operations. The potential wartime costs in terms of lives lost and dollars spent are dividing the parties, and potentially Americans themselves.
Unlike the run-up to the Iraq War in 2003, which included long debates in Congress in the aftermath of the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, or the more recent US military strikes on Venezuela that proved to be limited, the joint US-Israel military attack on Iran, called Operation Epic Fury, is well underway, with no foreseeable end in sight.
“It’s worrisome,” Rep. Adam Smith, the top Democrat on the House Armed Services Committee, told The Associated Press.
Smith said of Trump: “He is not trying to making his case to the Congress or the American people. He unilaterally decided to do this.”
In fact, Congress has declared war just five times in the nation’s history, most recently in 1941, to enter World War II a day after the Pearl Harbor attack. Over time, presidents of both major political parties have accumulated vast authority to engage in what are often more limited US military strikes.
Johnson said tying Trump’s hands right now would be “frightening” as he works to defeat the war powers resolution.
Even if Congress is able to pass the measure this week, the House and the Senate would be unlikely to tally the two-thirds majority needed to overcome a presidential veto.
Next steps for Iranian people uncertain
As the Trump administration encourages the Iranian people to rise up and choose new leaders, there did not appear to be widespread US support for any effort at democracy- or nation-building.
“We would love to see this regime be replaced,” Rubio said. “If there’s something we can do to help them down the road, we’d obviously be open to it. But that’s not the objective.”
A top Trump ally, Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., said he never bought into the you-break-it-you-own-it concept in wartime.
“If there’s a threat to America, deal with it,” he said over the weekend. “That doesn’t mean you own everything that follows.”