Western Sahara – Madrid Closed-Door Meeting: U.S. Reassertion of Control through Algeria

Executive Assessment

The closed-door meeting held on 8 February at the U.S. Embassy in Madrid, bringing together Morocco, Algeria, the Polisario Front, and Mauritania under U.S. sponsorship, appears aimed at reactivating a stalled diplomatic track on Western Sahara.

Rather than indicating an imminent breakthrough, the meeting is best assessed as a controlled process reset intended to reduce escalation risks, re-emphasize the UN framework, and re-establish structured engagement among the principal parties.

Washington’s approach, as reflected in the format and sequencing, is incremental and risk-averse. It is also consistent with broader U.S. interests in regional stability, energy security, and bilateral leverage—though the degree to which these drivers shape the Western Sahara file remains a matter of interpretation.

Madrid as a Controlled Diplomatic Platform

The meeting was conducted under strict confidentiality at the U.S. Embassy in Madrid, with minimal official disclosure. Spanish authorities, while hosting, refrained from any mediating role and limited their involvement to logistical facilitation.

This configuration is consistent with U.S. preference to:
• centralize agenda management,
• limit premature public signalling,
• and reduce the scope for external actors to shape narratives before process parameters are set.

Participants included the foreign ministers of Morocco, Algeria, and Mauritania, the diplomatic leadership of the Polisario Front, UN Special Envoy Staffan de Mistura, and U.S. officials Massad Boulos and Michael Waltz, who played an active convening role.

Overall, the meeting format suggests a prioritization of process discipline and confidentiality over public diplomacy.

Algeria’s Re-Centralization in the Process

A notable feature of the Madrid meeting is the practical re-positioning of Algeria as a central participant rather than a purely external stakeholder.

Diplomatic assessments commonly emphasize:
• Any sustained reactivation of the UN process is likely to require Algerian engagement.
• Algeria’s role intersects with regional security considerations and energy-related stability concerns.

Algerian Foreign Minister Ahmed Attaf’s limited public commentary following the meeting can be interpreted as consistent with a preference for procedural consolidation rather than public signalling. Reporting suggests discussions focused on frameworks, sequencing, and confidence-building measures, rather than substantive concessions.

Among participants, Algeria’s posture appears to have been viewed as important to maintaining a workable diplomatic track.

The Boulos Doctrine: Algeria First

The Madrid meeting can be read alongside the broader engagement pattern associated with Massad Boulos since mid-2025.

Across successive Maghreb engagements:
• Algeria has often been the first and most substantive stop.
• Meetings in Algiers have involved high-level political and energy interlocutors.
• Engagement with Morocco has tended to follow.

This sequencing may reflect a U.S. assessment that Algeria’s participation is necessary for any process to remain viable, even if it does not imply that Algeria can determine the outcome unilaterally.

Energy as Strategic Leverage

Algeria’s diplomatic weight is reinforced by its role in European energy supply, particularly through pipeline infrastructure and LNG exports.

Commonly cited indicators include:
• Major pipeline gas exports to Europe.
• Significant supplier status for Spain and Italy.
• Increased European orientation of LNG flows relative to other markets.
• Control of key infrastructure (including Transmed and Medgaz).

With the EU’s stated intent to reduce dependence on Russian gas over the coming years, Algeria’s leverage in energy markets may increase, potentially shaping the broader regional context in which conflict-management efforts take place.

That said, the extent to which energy considerations directly structure Western Sahara negotiations remains contested and should be treated as an analytical hypothesis rather than a settled conclusion.

Strict Reaffirmation of the UN Framework

Contrary to partisan narratives portraying the meeting as a shift in end-state positioning, Madrid appears to have reaffirmed a UN-anchored approach.

Positions remain unchanged:
• Morocco continues to promote its autonomy plan.
• The Polisario Front maintains its demand for a self-determination referendum including independence.
• The UN framework continues to emphasize a negotiated, mutually acceptable political solution.

The meeting did not resolve these positions. Its apparent purpose was to restore a credible process and improve the prospects for structured engagement.

Strategic Interpretation

The Madrid meeting most plausibly represents:
• a controlled diplomatic reset,
• a de-escalatory signal amid regional fragility,
• and an effort to align the Western Sahara track with wider stability objectives.

One interpretation is that the U.S. is seeking tighter process management and a more predictable negotiation environment. Another is that the U.S. is attempting to provide de Mistura and the UN track with renewed diplomatic oxygen without committing to a near-term end-state push.

A further interpretation—advanced by some observers—is that U.S. diplomacy is increasingly transactional, integrating commercial and energy considerations more directly into regional engagement. While consistent with elements of recent U.S. practice, this remains an interpretive lens rather than a definitive description of policy intent.

Conclusion

The Madrid meeting signals the start of a quiet but potentially consequential reactivation of the Western Sahara dossier.

Washington does not appear to be imposing an immediate solution. Instead, the meeting suggests an effort to rebuild a controlled, UN-linked process, with Algeria positioned as a key participant whose engagement is likely necessary for sustained progress.

Energy security and regional stability concerns form an important part of the operating environment. Whether they become decisive drivers inside the negotiation track will depend on subsequent sequencing, confidence-building outcomes, and the degree to which the parties shift from process to substance.