ALGERIAN PATRIOTS - ENGLISH

It took just one official post on X — sober, documented, and diplomatic — to expose an embarrassing reality: whenever Algeria is mentioned, some Moroccans would rather deny history than read it . A few days ago, the United States Embassy in Algiers recalled, with evidence in hand, a basic historical fact: the 1795 Treaty of Peace and Amity , signed in Algiers, constitutes one of the oldest chapters in Algerian–American relations. This treaty exists, it is accessible, and it is archived. And yet, instead of a calm debate, a wave of comments emerged seeking to declare as “impossible” what the archives clearly attest. A significant share of the most aggressive reactions — largely stemming from a Moroccan controversy on social media — revolved around a repetitive slogan: “Algeria did not exist in 1795.” In other words: if the fact is inconvenient, deny the fact. If the document contradicts the narrative, accuse the document. This is the logic of rewriting history through incantation and s...

The French refusal to align with a logic of long-term military engagement against Iran is neither ambiguous nor hesitant. It is part of a far broader geopolitical context, marked by a profound reconfiguration of power relations, growing uncertainty regarding the American stance, and the rise of systemic risks on a global scale. Three recent elements help to better understand the French position and, more broadly, the European one. 1. Contradictory signals from Washington: a weakened Western alliance For several months, Donald Trump has never concealed his distrust of traditional multilateral alliances. The issue of a U.S. withdrawal from NATO , or at the very least a major strategic disengagement, frequently reappears in his political discourse. This signal is far from trivial: it calls into question the very principle of automatic solidarity that has underpinned Euro‑Atlantic security since 1949. For Europeans, this hypothesis creates a dangerous equation: either align with a short‑te...

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...

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...

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...

The decision to launch the offensive against Iran on February 28 was not merely a matter of operational convenience. In modern military strategy, the choice of date is itself a component of the maneuver —a way to shape the narrative, manage perceptions, and amplify psychological impact. The timing sits in a dense symbolic corridor: it comes just ahead of Purim , a Jewish festival associated in biblical tradition with the downfall of a Persian court figure, and it also falls within the early days of Ramadan , a period whose strategic memory in the Arab world is often linked to the opening phase of the October 1973 war. The point is not to overread symbolism, but to recognize its function: cognitive warfare thrives on resonant timing —it rallies domestic audiences, signals intent outward, and imposes psychological pressure on the adversary. In this sense, time becomes an effect multiplier . Operational Profile and Strike Architecture The joint U.S.–Israeli attack—framed by Tel Aviv as ...

For several months, a deliberate campaign has sought to impose a simple idea: the question of Western Sahara is settled, sealed, irreversible. Morocco, we are told, is no longer negotiating anything; it is merely formalizing a sovereignty already acquired. Washington’s mission, according to this narrative, would be to persuade the Polisario Front to place its signature at the bottom of an agreement whose terms are supposedly already written. This staging aims to produce a psychological effect: to create the impression that history has already ended. Yet in diplomacy, declaring a conflict resolved does not resolve it. Rhetoric may precede reality; it never replaces it. Resolution 2797: A Diplomatic Instrument, Not a Blank Check Resolution 2797 is presented as the definitive consecration of autonomy under Moroccan sovereignty . But a strategic reading suggests something quite different. The Security Council: describes the Moroccan initiative as “serious and credible”; calls for a poli...

Since the adoption of United Nations Security Council Resolution 2797 , the Western Sahara file has entered a new phase—one marked less by legal progress than by an intensified battle of narratives. Morocco, supported by certain Western diplomatic circles, has sought to portray its autonomy plan as a definitive, irreversible solution endowed with international legitimacy. Yet a careful reading of the resolution, combined with a strict application of international law , reveals a far more sobering reality: the conflict remains legally unresolved, and Moroccan sovereignty over Western Sahara has never been established.   Official and unofficial accounts of the Madrid talks converge on a fundamental point often obscured by Moroccan discourse: the United States failed to impose the autonomy plan as the sole outcome of the negotiations. The Sahrawi side , backed by Algeria, maintained a firm and principled stance centered on the right to self-determination as the cornerstone of any ...