Steven Witkoff’s recent statement on a hypothetical “peace” between Algeria and Morocco illustrates the recurring Washington temptation to reduce the Maghreb into a theater of diplomatic experiments. Behind these bombastic announcements, what is really at play is the strategic equilibrium of a region where Algeria remains the real key.
This narrative of reconciliation, relayed by voices under the spell of the idea of reconciliation under external leadership, actually revives the old rivalry between Algiers and Rabat. It is in this context that Morocco has refined, during the past few years, an ambitious diplomacy of influence, skillfully enveloped in a discourse of “stable modernity” and “Atlantic success”.
Beneath a polished exterior, this strategy is built on a twofold artifice. First, inflating the international stature of the kingdom by opposing it to an Algeria presented as authoritarian and failing. Second, shaping an attractive narrative for Western capitals eager for a “moderate” partner in North Africa. The charm operation often works, until the narrative is confronted to reality.
Morocco understood that in contemporary diplomacy, perceptions shape outcomes just as much as facts do. Its in-house think tanks, its English- and French-speaking media platforms, and a tightly aligned network of messaging operatives in Washington, Brussels and Paris produce a calibrated rhetoric: A “stable”, “reformist” kingdom, champion of the fight against terrorism and a reliable partner of the West.
By contrast, Algeria is cast as “closed,” “militarized” and “ideologically outdated.” This is no coincidence. The aim is to box Algiers into the convenient role of the regional counter-model, thereby reinforcing Morocco’s claim to diplomatic primacy. The effect sought is psychological: To suggest that, between the two Maghreb neighbors, only one truly fits the profile of a “trusted ally.”
The storytelling of a paper “tiger”
Yet this staged narrative overlooks a fundamental reality: Real power is not measured in Davos lounges or in the frequency of joint statements, but in economic depth, energy capacity and institutional coherence — three areas in which Algeria still retains a structural advantage.
In the Moroccan discourse, the national economy is presented as an “African model” with its “modern industrial zones, logistical hubs, booming automobile exports”. In reality, these achievements, albeit noteworthy, rely on a fragile foundation. A near-complete reliance on external sources for energy, a rising debt (close to 80% of GDP) and a structural commercial deficit. Morocco produces but does not control its resources nor its technologies.
The parallel with 18th-century “Potemkin villages” is hard to ignore. Beneath the glossy industrial façades lies an economy on life support from foreign investment, exposed to any pullback from European or Gulf capital. Conversely, Algeria, despite its bureaucratic inertia, enjoys a colossal energy capital, strategic reserves and a largely untapped mining and solar potential. Western industrialists who think in terms of resources, not of image, know where strategic depth is located.
The manufacturing of the Algerian threat
Security forms the second pillar of the Moroccan narrative. Rabat presents itself as a “bulwark” against Sahel instability and political Islamism. Washington and Paris like the argument because it flatters the thirst for stability without putting into question the internal agendas of Western powers.
But the effectiveness of this posture remains debatable. Morocco does not control its Saharan borders and lacks both the territorial depth and the military means to project a lasting influence into the Sahel-Sahara belt. In contrast, Algeria, with its 2000km Sahel borders, its counterterrorism experience and its regional intelligence networks remains an indispensable actor. Strategic realism suggests that any credible security architecture in the Sahel goes first through Algiers, not Rabat.
To compensate for this concrete asymmetry, Moroccan diplomacy has specialized in constructing the narrative of an ‘Algerian threat.’ Pseudo-academic publications, ‘strategic’ leaks, and aligned think tank papers all converge on the same idea: Algeria is portrayed as a retrograde military state, isolated, adrift, and in need of being ‘re-educated’ within a benevolent Atlantic framework.
This staged narrative serves two purposes. First, to divert attention from the deadlock of the Saharan issue by turning a territorial dispute into a regime problem. Second, to convince Western partners that any normalization in the Maghreb must go through bringing Algiers into line. The method is as old as diplomacy itself: Demonize the adversary in order to present oneself as the rational alternative.
The West confronted with its own interests
Rabat strives to embody the model of a neoliberal, pro-Western “middle power”. Yet this positioning becomes paradoxical: The more Morocco aligns itself with Atlantic interests, the more it loses the room for maneuver needed to negotiate on equal terms. The asymmetric military partnership, technological dependencies and the normalization with Israel have certainly brought immediate diplomatic dividends, but they have also locked the country into a logic of strategic subordination.
In contrast, Algeria, and despite its institutional conservatism, retains broader margins of autonomy. It is an energy partner of Europe, a dialogue counterpart for Russia and China, and a pivotal actor within OPEC +. An Algerian diplomacy that is discreet yet consistent, privileging continuity over media-driven spectacle, often proves more credible in the long term.
Western chancelleries are well aware of these balances. Their objective interest is not to pick a Maghreb “favorite”, but to diversify partnerships. The European energy crisis, the militarization of the Sahel and the rise of the Eastern Mediterranean have restored Algeria’s concrete strategic value: Gas, phosphate, uranium, and a pivotal territory. European capitals that bet only on the Moroccan façade risk geopolitical disillusionment. Morocco remains a compliant ally, but one with limited depth.
A kingdom obsessed with narrative
Ultimately, Morocco’s strength is not material but narrative. It knows how to charm editorialists and television panels, whereas Algeria, more rigid et less communicative, often leaves the field open to the storytellers. This is an advantage of communication, not power. Yet recent history shows that countries which invest more in storytelling than in substance eventually collide with the gravity of reality.
Far more being an ideological duel, the Maghreb rivalry is one of projection versus depth. On the one hand, a state that shines through its mastery of image, on the other, a state that, despite its slower pace, retains the concrete levers of sovereignty. The former markets itself as a liberal success story, the latter presents itself as a demanding yet indispensable partner.
Unable to reshape the Maghreb’s strategic reality, Morocco strives instead to rewrite its narrative. It turns each limitation (size, dependence, lack of energy) into a marketable slogan: “stability,” “moderation,” “hub.” It is a triumph of image, but an illusion of depth.
Algeria, by contrast, despite its contradictions, remains the geopolitical keystone of the North-Sahel with its territory, its army, its resources and its depth.
In the long term, Western powers stand to gain less from applauding showcases of modernity than from investing in substantive partnerships. Narrative-based diplomacy has its limits, it always dissolves sooner or later in the geography. Morocco cannot truly compete with Algeria. One competes only with an equal, not with a reflection magnified by communication.
