In recent months, Moroccan media outlets and circles close to the Makhzen have multiplied claims suggesting that Morocco harbors an alleged intention to “occupy” the Algerian cities of Béchar and Tindouf — as if these regions were disputed territories.
No Moroccan official has ever made such a statement, yet Rabat insists on nurturing this illusion.
How can one explain these recurring provocations, especially when the military, diplomatic, and historical balance of power clearly favors Algeria?
To understand this phenomenon, one must analyze it through historical, psychological, and geopolitical lenses.
1. A Historical Complex Rooted in Defeat and Rivalry
Tension between Algeria and Morocco has deep roots that go back to the post-independence era.
The Moroccan monarchy believed that an independent Algeria would remain “grateful” to Rabat for its alleged support during the war of liberation.
Instead, it witnessed the emergence of a sovereign, revolutionary Algeria, proudly asserting its independence and anti-imperialist stance.
Thus, Morocco found itself facing an upright and dignified Algeria, heir to the legacy of Emir Abdelkader.
This unexpected shift produced a lasting inferiority complex within the Makhzen, one that was further deepened by Morocco’s defeat in the 1963 Sand War.
Since then, Rabat has sought a symbolic revenge against an Algeria that embodies national dignity and the authentic spirit of Maghrebi sovereignty.
2. The Weight of History: Lalla Maghnia, or a Betrayal Rewarded
Morocco often speaks of “colonial borders,” yet it conveniently forgets a pivotal historical fact:
In 1845, it chose to ally with France against Emir Abdelkader in exchange for potential territorial gains at Algeria’s expense.
The Treaty of Lalla Maghnia formalized this betrayal — roughly 100,000 square kilometers of Algerian territory east of the Moulouya River were ceded to Morocco as a “reward” for its collaboration with the French colonial army.
That moment symbolized the first attempt by the Moroccan monarchy to expand not through historical legitimacy but through opportunistic alignment with foreign powers.
Today’s provocations are but the modern echo of that same mentality: seeking existence through hostility toward Algeria.
3. Internal Diversion: Turning Algeria into a Convenient Scapegoat
Morocco faces deep social, economic, and political crises:
rising unemployment, stark social inequality, unrest in the Rif and Sidi Ifni, and the suppression of dissent.
To distract from these realities, the regime systematically turns Algeria into a national scapegoat, convincing its people that “the threat comes from the East.”
By doing so, the Makhzen successfully unites domestic opinion around the monarchy, under the banner of “territorial integrity” and the myth of a “Greater Morocco.”
In truth, these provocations are symptoms of internal fragility, a way for the regime to escape accountability by fabricating an external enemy.
4. A Strategy of Provocation Without the Intention of War
The Moroccan leadership knows very well that the Algerian People’s National Army (ANP) enjoys clear superiority in manpower, technology, organization, and combat readiness.
However, Rabat has chosen another battlefield — the psychological and media front.
Its aim is not war but controlled tension: provoking without acting, insinuating without engaging.
Each time Algeria exercises restraint, Morocco presents itself to Western partners as the “responsible” party facing an “aggressive” neighbor — a classic inversion of victimhood and blame.
It is, in essence, a war of narratives, not of weapons.
5. Foreign Backing and the Illusion of Impunity
Rabat’s boldness is sustained by a protective diplomatic umbrella.
The United States, Israel, France, and the United Arab Emirates all provide political and strategic support to the Makhzen.
The Abraham Accords strengthened this dynamic: in exchange for normalizing relations with Israel, Morocco secured U.S. recognition of its claimed “sovereignty” over Western Sahara.
This external backing created a false sense of impunity, encouraging Morocco to test Algeria’s patience, confident that Algiers — faithful to its principle of non-interference — would not fall into the trap of escalation.
Yet this support cannot hide one undeniable truth: Morocco remains a client state operating within boundaries drawn by colonial powers, while Algeria continues to embody the ideal of genuine independence.
Conclusion
Morocco’s provocations against Algeria are not acts of irrationality; they are part of a calculated political survival strategy.
They reveal a persistent fear — the fear of a strong, sovereign, and respected Algeria.
Through these provocations, the Makhzen seeks not victory but validation; not confrontation, but existence through opposition.
In the end, Algeria does not need to respond militarily to prevail:
Its mere stability, independence, and moral strength are enough to expose the fragility of the regime that seeks to provoke it.
By Belgacem Merbah
Comments
Post a Comment