ALGERIAN PATRIOTS - ENGLISH

The Maghreb–Europe Gas Pipeline (GME) was never a mere technical installation. For a quarter of a century, it functioned as an energy bridge between Algeria, Morocco, and the Iberian Peninsula, demonstrating that a pipeline can continue to operate even when political relations deteriorate. Commissioned on November 1, 1996, the GME was conceived as early as 1990, built between 1993 and 1996, and continued to operate despite the closure of the Algerian–Moroccan land borders in 1994. What occurred in 2021, however, marked a true turning point : Algeria stopped treating gas as a so‑called “tool of cooperation” and restored it to what it has always fundamentally been—an instrument governed by cost, sovereignty, and deterrence . 1) The origins: a European project… with Morocco in a rent‑seeking position Initially, the GME served a clear objective: to transport Algerian gas to Spain and Portugal via Morocco and the Strait of Gibraltar. Stretching approximately 1,300 km, the pipeline was prese...

President Abdelmadjid Tebboune received an Eid al‑Fitr phone call from Massad Boulos , Senior Advisor to the U.S. President, during which both sides discussed bilateral relations and “developments in the international situation.” Beyond its ceremonial register, the exchange comes at a moment of rapid realignment in the balance of power, as Washington reassesses its options in the Middle East. Algeria’s official channels confirmed the call and its general content, which was subsequently relayed by several Algerian media outlets. The stature of the interlocutor is, in itself, a signal. Boulos—presented since late 2024 as Senior Advisor on Arab and Middle Eastern Affairs (and, since 2025, also on Africa)—embodies a direct conduit to President Trump’s inner circle. American and African media have documented this rise in influence, framed in terms that are both familial and politico‑diplomatic. A Hardening Context: The U.S./Israel–Iran War and the Risk of Regional Spillover Since 28 Febr...

The decision of the Appeals Jury of the Confederation of African Football (CAF) to strip Senegal of a victory earned on the pitch and award the Africa Cup of Nations to Morocco by administrative decision (on a “green table”) appears, upon examination, vitiated by manifest illegality , devoid of any persuasive legal basis and, as such, destined for clear annulment by the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS). This is not a mere disagreement over interpretation, nor a debatable exercise of discretion. The reasoning adopted reflects a fundamental error in legal classification and collides head‑on with the core principles of sports law— legality, proportionality, legal certainty, and the stability of competitions . By persisting in such a logic, CAF risks opening an institutional breach whose consequences could be lasting—not only for the outcome of a tournament, but for the credibility of the continental sporting order itself. 1) A Regulatory Basis Invoked… but Misapplied In an attem...

In every modern conflict, the narrative precedes the bombs. Long before the first missiles are fired — months, sometimes years in advance — a carefully constructed story has already prepared world opinion to accept the unacceptable. The war against Iran is no exception to this rule. Yet something in this particular conflict resists the familiar logic of wartime communication: neither Washington nor Tel Aviv has ever clearly, consistently, or coherently articulated their strategic and tactical objectives. This absence of clarity, far from being an accident or a failure of messaging, constitutes in itself an analytical indicator of the first order. For when wars are waged in pursuit of legitimate and acknowledged goals, those goals are proclaimed loudly and proudly. History remembers the precision with which the 1991 coalition defined its limited mandate: to drive the Iraqi army out of Kuwait, nothing more. It remembers, too, the clarity — however grounded in deception — with which th...

For several decades, Morocco has made a clear strategic choice: to anchor its military and security doctrine within the Western system. Rabat has thus invested heavily in interoperability with NATO armies , multiplied military cooperation agreements with the United States and European powers, and, more recently, deepened its security and technological cooperation with Israel. This orientation was not merely a policy of military modernization. It rested on a fundamental strategic assumption: integration into the Western security architecture would offer Morocco a form of implicit protection in the event of a major crisis. However, recent geopolitical developments in the Middle East—particularly the tensions linked to the confrontation with Iran —have begun to shake this conviction in several regional capitals. The Gulf precedent: costly but limited alliances The Gulf monarchies have invested hundreds of billions of dollars in their strategic relations with the United States. They have...

The speech delivered this Saturday by Iranian President Massoud Pezeshkian marks a major turning point in Tehran’s security doctrine. As the war—now entering its second week—shakes the regional balance, the president announced that  Iran would suspend its strikes against Arab countries , on the explicit condition that  these states no longer allow American or Israeli forces to use their bases to launch attacks against Iran . This statement comes at a moment of profound reconfiguration of the strategic landscape in the Middle East. 1. A Conciliatory Message… but a Conditional One In his address, President Pezeshkian expressed apologies to neighboring countries and reaffirmed that Iran harbors no aggressive intentions toward them. He insisted on the need to “work with regional states to guarantee peace and security,” noting that despite the sudden loss of several Iranian leaders during the initial strikes, the country’s armed forces acted autonomously and within the fram...