The growing strategic importance of remote forested areas has prompted governments in the region to designate large swaths of land as military zones, reflecting concerns that insurgent groups are using dense vegetation to plan attacks, move personnel and sustain logistical networks beyond the reach of state forces.

In Mali, authorities this month declared the 80,000-hectare Faya forest and 38 other forests and parks off-limits to civilians, describing them as potential sanctuaries for armed groups. The measure followed a series of major attacks carried out by Jama’at Nusrat al-Islam wal-Muslimin (JNIM), Al-Qaeda’s affiliate in the Sahel, and allied Tuareg separatist fighters.

The forests covered by the decree form a broad corridor stretching across southern Mali from the borders with Senegal and Mauritania to Guinea and Côte d’Ivoire.

Analysts say such areas provide militants with significant operational advantages. Sparse state presence, limited infrastructure and the absence of permanent settlements make surveillance and enforcement difficult, allowing insurgent groups to establish enduring footholds.

“These are large natural areas that are sometimes not very well controlled by the state,” said Franklin Nossiter, a Sahel analyst at the International Crisis Group. He said the lack of military installations and administrative infrastructure in many forest zones has made them attractive locations for militant activity.

Similar security measures have been implemented in neighboring Burkina Faso and Niger, where authorities have increasingly restricted civilian access to forested regions associated with militant operations.

In Niger’s Torodi region, a heavily wooded area near the Burkina Faso border, officials have designated sections of territory as restricted military zones due to persistent attacks by armed groups.

Local industry representatives say militants regard logging and transport activities as threats to their shelter networks. A timber sector official told AFP that dozens of trucks had been destroyed and more than 20 transport workers killed in attacks linked to insurgent groups operating in the area.

Security researchers argue that militant organizations now view forests as more than defensive hideouts. Samir Bhattacharya of the Observer Research Foundation said sustained military pressure in urban centers and improved aerial surveillance have encouraged insurgents to establish permanent bases in remote woodland areas.

The terrain also offers economic opportunities. Militants have increasingly exploited informal economies linked to mining, livestock grazing, smuggling routes and poaching to finance their operations and strengthen local influence.

According to the Armed Conflict Location & Event Data Project (ACLED), the continued use of forests and nature reserves by militant groups demonstrates a deliberate long-term strategy rather than temporary adaptation.

JNIM initially expanded through the W-Arly-Pendjari complex of parks and reserves spanning parts of Benin, Burkina Faso and Niger. The region’s proximity to several international borders has enabled insurgents to move across jurisdictions while avoiding concentrated military pressure.

Meanwhile, the Islamic State in the Sahel Province (ISSP) has developed networks in forested and hilly areas along the Niger-Nigeria frontier, conflict monitors say.

Military efforts to dislodge militants have faced significant challenges. Analysts note that dense vegetation reduces the effectiveness of drone surveillance and air strikes, while difficult terrain limits the mobility of armored vehicles and conventional ground forces.

Experts also caution that aggressive counterinsurgency operations in forest areas could carry risks if civilians are harmed or displaced. Such outcomes, they argue, could fuel local grievances and potentially aid recruitment efforts by militant organizations.

The growing contest for control of the Sahel’s forests underscores the evolving nature of the region’s insurgencies, where geography, local economies and weak state presence have become increasingly central to the conflict.

The agreement, signed on June 14 and scheduled for an official ceremony in Switzerland on June 19, includes provisions for an “immediate and permanent” end to military operations and outlines commitments by Iran to pause nuclear enrichment activity in exchange for sanctions relief and the release of frozen funds, though several terms remain subject to final negotiations.

Iran has sought broad economic relief as part of the arrangement, including the lifting of sanctions and access to frozen assets, while Iranian state media has cited a draft proposal that reportedly includes the release of $24 billion in frozen Iranian funds during the negotiating period, though this has not been confirmed by either side.

A central obstacle lies in the United Nations Security Council’s “snapback” mechanism under Resolution 2231, which allowed for the reimposition of previously lifted sanctions on Iran following a notification of non-compliance by France, Germany and Britain in August 2025, resulting in sanctions being restored in September 2025.

Those measures include restrictions on Iran’s nuclear and missile programmes, asset freezes, travel bans and limits on Iranian banks’ access to the global financial system, and remain in force despite the US-Iran agreement, which does not affect UN-level restrictions.

The legal framework governing the sanctions means that while the United States can adjust its own unilateral measures, any reversal of UN sanctions requires consensus among Security Council members, a process complicated by deep divisions over the legality of the snapback mechanism.

China and Russia have challenged the legitimacy of the reimposed sanctions, arguing that earlier UN resolutions had expired, while Western states including the US, France and Britain maintain that the mechanism was properly triggered and therefore binding.

Analysts say this divergence has created an uneven enforcement environment in which some states continue limited trade with Iran while others adhere to restrictions, limiting the effectiveness of both sanctions and potential relief.

Daniel Forti of the International Crisis Group said lifting UN sanctions would require full Security Council agreement, noting that the sanctions cover multiple regimes targeting Iran’s nuclear programme, missile development, financial networks and related assets.

Iranian officials have indicated they will seek a new Security Council resolution to endorse any final agreement, a move that analysts say could provide legal clarity and international legitimacy but would require unanimous approval among permanent members of the Council.

The outcome of the ongoing negotiations will therefore depend not only on bilateral US-Iran terms but also on whether the Security Council can bridge its divisions over the snapback sanctions framework, which remains a central point of contention in the implementation of any broader settlement.

The 15-member council had been due to vote Friday on a proposal introduced by Bahrain, but the session was deferred, with diplomatic sources citing the observance of Good Friday as the official reason. No new date for the vote has been announced.

The draft resolution, backed by the United States, would permit member states, acting individually or through multinational coalitions, to use “all defensive means necessary” to ensure safe passage through the strait and deter interference with international navigation. The mandate would apply for an initial period of at least six months.

The proposal comes as Iran has effectively constrained traffic through the vital shipping lane in response to U.S.-Israeli military actions, disrupting global energy flows. The strait typically carries around one-fifth of the world’s oil and liquefied natural gas supplies, making it a critical artery for global trade.

Bahrain’s UN ambassador Jamal Alrowaiei described the resolution as timely, warning of the wider economic impact of disruptions to shipping. However, the measure faces resistance from key council members, including Russia and China, both of which hold veto power and have expressed concerns that authorizing force could escalate the conflict.

Chinese envoy Fu Cong said such authorization risks legitimizing “indiscriminate use of force,” while Russia has criticized what it views as unilateral approaches to the crisis. France, another permanent member, has signaled cautious support after revisions emphasized the defensive nature of the proposal.

Analysts say the resolution faces significant hurdles. Daniel Forti of the International Crisis Group said it is unlikely to gain approval without broader consensus, particularly if it does not address underlying political drivers of the conflict.

Separately, Donald Trump said countries facing fuel shortages should secure their own supplies in the region, adding that U.S. forces would not intervene on their behalf.

Iran’s Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi warned against any “provocative action” at the Security Council, cautioning that further steps could intensify the situation.The draft reflects rare consideration of force authorization by the council, underscoring the severity of the disruption to global energy markets and maritime security.