ALGERIAN PATRIOTS - ENGLISH

What was presented as a triumph of diplomacy — a ceasefire between Iran and Israel — is, according to seasoned observers, a geopolitical trap meticulously crafted to serve Tel Aviv’s military and political interests. Far from being a genuine step toward peace, the truce orchestrated by the Trump administration came at a moment when the Israeli military, overwhelmed by the precision and effectiveness of Iranian strikes, was on the brink of collapse. A Ceasefire to Rescue the Israeli Army The timing of the ceasefire was no coincidence. It was enforced almost immediately after Iran launched retaliatory missile strikes on the U.S. Al-Udeid Air Base in Qatar, in response to a limited American air raid targeting three Iranian nuclear sites. While the American narrative emphasized “de-escalation,” the real reason was far more strategic: Israel’s military was faltering. Israel’s much-hyped Iron Dome system had been saturated, ammunition stockpiles were critically low, and troop morale was crum...

On June 22, 2025, the United States launched a series of airstrikes against three Iranian sites allegedly linked to its nuclear program: Isfahan, Natanz, and Fordow. The operation, carried out by the U.S. Strategic Command, involved B-2 stealth bombers and GBU-57 bunker-buster munitions. President Donald Trump hailed the strikes as a “magnificent victory” that demonstrated the supremacy of American air power. However, Scott Ritter—a former United Nations weapons inspector and former U.S. military intelligence officer—sees the operation as more of a staged performance than a genuine military action. In a recent video, he harshly criticized what he described as a “military spectacle devoid of substance,” arguing that the strikes amounted to little more than “a made-for-TV performance” lacking strategic seriousness. Empty Targets, Hollow Symbolism According to Ritter’s assessment, most of the targeted sites were either devoid of equipment or had no remaining strategic infrastructure, due ...

In the dead of night, American warplanes streaked across the sky, striking three nuclear-related sites deep inside Iranian territory. The operation, hailed in Washington as a “decisive message” to Tehran, was presented as a show of strength — a warning against further escalation. But beyond the optics of shock and awe, a simple question lingers: what have the Americans actually achieved? 1. The Infrastructure Still Stands Despite the precision-guided munitions and real-time satellite targeting, Iran’s critical nuclear infrastructure appears largely untouched. Reports from the ground and international monitoring suggest only minor damage was inflicted on peripheral facilities. The core of Iran’s nuclear fuel cycle — centrifuge arrays, enrichment labs, and engineering hubs — remains operational. Tehran’s nuclear ambitions, far from being derailed, are now more justified than ever in the eyes of its leadership and public. 2. Enrichment Will Continue — And Accelerate The fog of diplomacy ...

As the conflict between the Islamic Republic of Iran and Israel escalates to unprecedented levels, Russia emerges as a pivotal actor attempting to navigate a delicate balance between two seemingly opposing paths: a strategic partnership with Tehran on one side, and stable, even trusting, relations with Tel Aviv on the other. Recent statements by Russian President Vladimir Putin and Kremlin officials reveal a calculated diplomatic posture, seeking to maintain influence in the Middle East without becoming militarily entangled. 1. Political Support Without Military Commitment The Kremlin has made it clear that Iran has not requested any military assistance from Russia, and that their strategic partnership includes no defense clauses. While this statement may appear technical, it carries significant political implications: Moscow is intentionally avoiding any direct involvement in the conflict, while still offering general political backing to Tehran. Russia acknowledges the presence of ov...

One constant has emerged in Middle Eastern conflicts since the early 2000s: war is not always waged by those who fund it — but it is often paid for by the same players. From the 2011 war against Muammar Gaddafi’s regime in Libya to the current tensions with Iran, several Gulf powers — particularly Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates — have played the role of silent financiers of wars carried out by others, primarily the United States and its allies. The Libyan Precedent: A NATO War Funded by the Gulf In 2011, the military campaign against Gaddafi, launched under a UN mandate and led by NATO, was heavily financed by Gulf monarchies. Qatar took an active role on the ground, supporting armed rebel groups, while the UAE and Saudi Arabia provided discreet diplomatic and logistical support. Although the war was framed as a humanitarian intervention in response to repression, it clearly served geopolitical aims: to eliminate a non-aligned leader, reshape the regional balance of power, a...

Since President Donald Trump’s official visit to Riyadh in 2017, U.S. foreign policy toward the Middle East has undergone a profound transformation. This shift marked a clear departure from the Obama administration’s approach, which emphasized dialogue with “moderate” Islamist actors in the wake of the Arab Spring. Instead, the Trump doctrine favored a partnership with traditional Gulf monarchies, prioritizing economic growth and authoritarian stability over political reform and ideological pluralism. This article seeks to examine the implications of this paradigmatic shift, exploring the emergence of what may be termed “investment Islam” as a replacement for “political Islam”. It analyzes the resulting transformations in regional power dynamics, evaluates the reliability of emerging narratives, and offers a critical perspective on the new U.S.-led framework for Middle Eastern order. 1. From Obama’s “Moderate Islam” to Trump’s “Profit-Driven Islam” The Obama administration’s Middle Eas...

New York, April 16, 2025. In the solemn chamber of the United Nations Security Council, a man takes the floor. With composure, precision, and a measured gravitas, Staffan de Mistura , the Personal Envoy of the UN Secretary-General for Western Sahara, delivers a briefing that, according to several diplomats present, may well mark a turning point in the protracted Sahrawi dossier. This report comes at a highly charged moment: fifty years after Spain’s withdrawal from Western Sahara in 1975, the question of decolonization remains unresolved, frozen in a status quo that only a crisis—or a concerted international awakening—might shake loose. For the first time in a long while, such a shift now appears within reach. A Diplomatic Trilogy at the Core of the Report Three key messages emerge from De Mistura’s address—three pillars that reflect both the current posture of the United States and shifting power dynamics within the Security Council. 1. Toward “Genuine” Autonomy: A Call for Clari...

On August 23, 1957, a confidential CIA document was drafted, revealing crucial insights into French policy toward Algeria, then in the midst of its war of independence. Recently declassified, this document sheds new light on France’s intentions regarding the oil-rich Saharan regions and its post-independence strategies. Through diplomatic, economic, and geopolitical maneuvers, Paris sought to maintain its grip on this strategically vital territory. An Indispensable Algerian Sahara for France According to the document, France regarded the Algerian Sahara as a region of paramount importance—not only for its oil and gas resources but also for its strategic position in North Africa. With this in mind, Paris was determined to secure its control over the area at all costs, administratively detaching it from the rest of Algeria. This policy materialized in 1957 with the creation of two separate Saharan departments—an initiative designed to ensure that even in the event of Algerian independenc...

Algeria, often seen as a discreet yet influential player on the global stage, is now reaping the benefits of a well-calculated geopolitical strategy based on independence, regional influence, and diversified partnerships . While France faces increasing marginalization in Europe and Africa, and alliances in the Sahel begin to fracture, Algeria is solidifying its position as a key regional power . Recent developments— Mali’s diplomatic U-turn towards Algeria , France’s strategic missteps , and the exclusion of Europe from US-Russia discussions on Ukraine —all illustrate how Algiers’ commitment to pragmatism, sovereignty, and multilateralism is paying off in the long run. Mali Reconciles with Algeria: A Diplomatic Triumph One of the clearest signs of Algeria’s diplomatic success is Mali’s recent decision to restore high-level relations with Algeria by sending an ambassador to Algiers , signaling an attempt to de-escalate tensions that had emerged in recent months. 🔹 Morocco’s Attem...

The recently signed memorandum of understanding (MoU) between Algeria and the United States in the field of defense marks a significant development in the bilateral relations between the two countries. While the specific details of the agreement remain undisclosed, it is clear that the MoU aims to establish mechanisms for cooperation to bolster joint efforts in combating terrorism and drug trafficking in North Africa, particularly in the strategically important Sahel region. However, this rapprochement may raise concerns in Moscow, which has traditionally been a key partner for Algeria and could perceive this development as a shift in Algeria's strategic priorities. Strategic Context: Enhanced Military Cooperation As a regional power and a key player in combating insecurity in the Sahel, Algeria has historically relied on diverse military partnerships to maintain its strategic independence. The agreement with Washington fits into this framework, reflecting Algeria's desire to d...

This article examines the prospects of a Trump administration toward Algeria, focusing on the role of American economic interests and recommendations from influential U.S. think tanks advocating for a strategic rapprochement with Algeria. In a context of heightened geopolitical competition, several American research institutions are encouraging strengthened ties with Algeria to curb Russian influence in North Africa. This article explores the economic, political, and strategic implications of such a potential rapprochement and its impact on U.S. foreign policy. Algeria occupies a strategic position in North Africa, thanks to its abundant natural resources and historical ties with several world powers, including Russia. These relations have sparked the interest of American think tanks, which recommend a more active engagement policy toward Algeria to limit Russian influence in the region. This article examines the implications of these recommendations and analyzes how a Trump administra...