ALGERIAN PATRIOTS - ENGLISH

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...

In an unprecedented escalation, an Iranian missile struck a sensitive military facility in Beersheba, in southern Israel, at dawn on Friday. The strike, which was not intercepted by Israeli air defense systems, was accompanied by a pointed message from Iran’s Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, who posted on the social media platform X: “The Zionist enemy is being punished at this very moment.” Far from being an isolated incident, this event may well signal a major strategic shift in the regional confrontation, particularly due to the nature of the target and the technical sophistication of the weapon used. Strategic Target: The Cyber and Military Core of Israel Unlike previous attacks, typically aimed at peripheral or front-line zones such as Gaza or southern Lebanon, this strike directly targeted a high-value military installation. According to Iranian sources, the facility houses cyber and military command infrastructure, potentially including data centers, surveillance operatio...

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...

Relations between Algeria and Morocco during the Algerian War of Independence (1954–1962) were far more complex than the romanticized narrative of “Maghrebian unity” often promoted in Moroccan historiography. A recent publication titled “The Algerian War of Liberation in the Moroccan Press: Aspects of Moroccan Support for the Algerian Struggle for Independence”, authored by Mustapha El Aïdi and Abdelilah Kenka, aims to portray Morocco as a key supporter of the Algerian Revolution. However, this interpretation overlooks the historical realities, minimizes Morocco’s ambivalent and often opportunistic stance, and overstates the actual impact of its so-called support. This academic article responds point by point to the claims made in that publication, relying on Algerian, French, and international sources, as well as testimonies from leaders of the Algerian Revolution. 1. The Moroccan Press: Symbolic Sympathy or Opportunistic Coverage? The publication argues that Moroccan newspapers such ...

Despite its reputation for military prowess and technological sophistication, Israel’s strategic culture often reveals traces of an archaic worldview, one in which ancient myths overshadow sober military analysis. Among the most persistent symbolic narratives is the story of Judith and Holofernes, a tale celebrated during Hanukkah. It portrays the assassination of a mighty general by a pious woman as the singular cause of an enemy army’s collapse. This myth, while rich in religious and cultural symbolism, appears to underpin a dangerously flawed assumption in Israeli military doctrine: that the elimination of a single enemy leader can precipitate the downfall of entire armies, movements, or regimes.   From Ancient Myth to Modern Strategy In the Book of Judith, a text revered in Jewish tradition, a courageous and devout woman seduces the Assyrian general Holofernes, intoxicates him, and severs his head in his sleep. The loss of their commander plunges the Assyrian army into chaos an...