On the evening of November 3, 2025, Masad Boulos’ interview on France 24 went beyond a simple diplomatic encounter or a formal statement. It served as a mirror reflecting a profound shift in the structure of the American and international discourse regarding the Moroccan Sahara. Boulos, the senior advisor to the U.S. President on African and Arab affairs, did not speak in a technical or administrative tone; rather, his voice carried the contours of a geopolitical shift in the Maghreb: from artificially manufactured conflict to recognized sovereignty, from a “decolonization” narrative to the reality of “stability” embodied by the Kingdom of Morocco under the leadership of His Majesty King Mohammed VI.
From the very first moments of the interview, when Boulos described the recent UN Security Council decision regarding the Sahara as “historic,” it was clear that we were witnessing a new American approach, one that cannot be measured by the usual diplomatic vocabulary but must be understood within a broader architecture aimed at rebalancing legitimacy in the Maghreb. This decision was “historic” not only because it renewed the UN mission’s mandate, but because it implicitly established Morocco’s central role in the regional security equation, consolidating the principle of practical sovereignty over the ideological claims that have accompanied this dossier for decades.
Boulos’ tone was calm yet laden with significance. He spoke of the “wisdom of His Majesty King Mohammed VI,” describing it as a crucial element upon which to rely for navigating the next phase. This praise was not incidental; it was a clear diplomatic signal that Washington now views Moroccan royal diplomacy as a strategic asset for regional stability.
Thus, what may have appeared to some as a “soft statement” actually conceals a solid recognition that Morocco is no longer assessed solely by its geography but by its political and reformist stature, making it the sole voice capable of transforming tension into balance in a turbulent space.
From Conflict to Sovereignty
When Boulos described the UN resolution as “beneficial for both sides,” he was in fact reframing the old equation in a new way: “consensus” no longer implies a gray, concessionary settlement, but rather an “agreement based on reality while preserving the dignity of all parties.” Today, after fifty years of systematic obstruction, Morocco is no longer negotiating its right but the conditions for exercising its sovereignty in a stable regional climate.
The UN resolution — as interpreted by Boulos — was not intended to please everyone but to end stagnation. For the first time, the Security Council used language clearly indicating that the Moroccan autonomy initiative constitutes the most realistic and durable framework for a solution, representing a direct victory for Moroccan political realism, which has chosen, since 2007, the path of construction over conflict.
Herein lies the depth of the new American stance: it does not retract the Trump administration’s recognition of Moroccan sovereignty, but it also does not reduce the issue to that recognition alone. Rather, it redirects the discussion toward a “practical solution” that positions Morocco as a cornerstone of regional stability and, if Algeria chooses wisdom, as a partner rather than an adversary.
Algeria Between Historical Burdens and Geographical Imperatives
When Boulos mentioned his recent visit to Algeria and the “openness of President Tebboune and his team to historical dialogue with Morocco,” it constituted a test of Algerian intent before the world. The United States is not speaking here of traditional mediation, but of a Maghreb peace map asserting that the time for stagnation is over.
The fundamental question remains: can Algeria free itself from the burden of its colonial history to listen to contemporary geographical logic? Since His Majesty King Mohammed VI’s speech on the 67th anniversary of the Revolution of the King and the People in 2021, Morocco has explicitly called for opening a new chapter, referring to Algeria as a “sister,” a designation that transcends diplomatic coldness and reflects a royal vision that values shared destiny over the logic of sterile hostility.
Between Rabat and Algiers, this is not a mere border dispute but a clash of perceptions: Morocco has become a state of institutions, stability, investment, and foresight, whereas Algeria remains trapped in a Cold War narrative, reproducing a discourse of “liberation” in an era where classical liberation slogans are outdated.
Hence, Boulos’ remarks about the “two brotherly countries” united by “culture, fraternity, and shared history” are not mere courtesy; they are a reminder that collective memory is stronger than political anxieties, and that the Maghreb can only rise if Moroccan royal wisdom meets a historical moment of Algerian awareness — perhaps long in coming, but inevitable.
The United States and the Era of “Moral Pragmatism”
At the heart of Boulos’ statements, one can discern a new American policy grounded in what may be called “moral pragmatism.” After major failures in the Middle East, Washington today seeks rational partners, not adventurers. Morocco, with its experience in countering extremism, managing migration, investing in Africa, and implementing gradual domestic reforms, has become a rare model of “productive stability” — stability that generates positive diplomatic energy in its neighborhood.
In contrast, Algeria, which once relied on the “permanent revolution” card, now faces a new equation: either engage in dialogue with Rabat on the basis of mutual recognition of sovereignty and interests, or persist in isolation, contrary to the new reality shaped by the great powers.
This is why Boulos’ statement that “the only way to resolve this issue is a consensus between the parties” is crucial. He did not mean a “concessionary settlement,” but a “consensus based on reality” — i.e., the acceptance by all parties of Moroccan sovereignty as the starting point for any dialogue. The essential question arises: will Algeria understand that the world has changed and that the logic of “revolutionary stagnation” is no longer viable in an era of geopolitical transformations?
The Moroccan Sahara: A Gateway to Redrawing the African Map
The discussion of the Sahara was not isolated from Boulos’ comments on Sudan. Here, the threads connecting geographically distant but strategically interlinked issues under the new American vision are clear: Washington seeks to extinguish fragmentation fires in Africa by establishing real stability axes. In this context, Morocco is the cornerstone of North Africa, Egypt for the Nile, and Sudan serves as a testing ground for American effectiveness in imposing humanitarian and political truce.
When Boulos referred to a “roadmap” to end the Sudanese crisis, he was not far from the philosophy behind the UN decision on the Sahara: in both cases, the objective is not the victory of one party over another, but the primacy of the state over chaos.
Here lies the strength of the Moroccan approach long advocated by Rabat: African stability is not achieved through foreign interventions or military solutions, but through reinforcing national legitimacy and enabling internal dialogue. This philosophy has allowed Morocco to host the Libyan dialogue and contribute to stability in the Sahel and West Africa through balanced developmental and security approaches.
Morocco: Quiet Diplomacy That Triumphs Without Noise
Masad Boulos was not speaking merely for Washington; he expressed — perhaps unconsciously — a delayed American recognition that Morocco had always been right. For decades, the Kingdom has pursued a long-term policy, quietly transforming its national project into a soft power capable of communicating with the world without ever compromising its sovereign essence.
Thus, the “Moroccan victory” is not measured only by U.S. recognition or the Security Council resolution, but by the international opinion shift toward the logic of the Kingdom. The world now sees Morocco as a model of a “stable reformist monarchy,” a rare formula in an increasingly unstable and fragmented world.
The question today is not “Has Moroccan diplomacy triumphed?” but rather, “To what extent can this victory evolve into a shared regional project?” True victory is not counted in decisions, but in Morocco’s ability to transform this political momentum into a new Maghreb dynamic, redefining old concepts of relations between peoples and demonstrating that sovereignty is not a struggle over sand, but a construction based on awareness and legitimacy.
Conclusion: Towards a New Maghreb Political Mindset
Between the Moroccan Sahara and Sudan, between Rabat and Algiers, a silent guiding thread emerges: the world is rediscovering the logic of the rational state, and Morocco is leading quietly and confidently.
Masad Boulos’ statements are not merely an American reading of a regional dossier; they are a political testament to the success of a unique Moroccan diplomatic school, proving that wisdom is not weakness, and that strategic patience can produce historical transformation without a single shot fired.
Perhaps Boulos meant to convey more than politics: he intended to acknowledge that Morocco has triumphed in its deepest battle — the battle of vision. Between the logic of conflict and the logic of sovereignty, the Kingdom has chosen a third path: the path of reasoned legitimacy that excludes no one but never relinquishes its right to leadership and sovereignty.
Thus, as the region teeters between Sudanese instability and Algerian hesitation, Rabat continues to hold the threads of the new regional rationality, advancing confidently along the path laid by the founding kings and continued by His Majesty King Mohammed VI: a path that makes Morocco more than a state, but the conscience of a region seeking stability in a world where meaning is increasingly lost.
