Think Forward.

La prudence stratégique des monarchies du Golfe : un calcul vital face à l’Iran et aux incertitudes américaines... 279

Aziz Daouda, 7 d.
- World Politics -
2.9 min read.
Les monarchies du Golfe: Arabie saoudite, Émirats arabes unis, Qatar ou Koweït, incarnent une vulnérabilité stratégique criante. Leur faible profondeur territoriale et l’étroitesse de leurs démographies respectives exposent des infrastructures vitales: aéroports, ports, raffineries, terminaux gaziers, sièges de grandes entreprises, à des frappes rapides d’ennemis potentiels de la région et d’ailleurs. L’Iran, par exemple, avec son arsenal de missiles balistiques, drones et forces navales asymétriques, le caractère belliqueux de la philosophie de son régime, peut les paralyser en un clin d’œil. L’attaque de 2019 contre les sites pétroliers d’Aramco à Abqaiq et Khurais en est la preuve irréfragable : la production saoudienne avait alors chuté de moitié. À la surprise des Saoudiens, les Américains sont restés évasifs et n’ont presque pas riposté, en tout cas, pas de manière claire et directe. Pour Riyad, ce silence fut un signal édifiant: les alliés ne sont plus infaillibles. Les accords signés peuvent rester lettres mortes par la volonté de l'une des parties, en fonction bien évidemment des intérêts du moment et des circonstances changeantes. Une méfiance croissante quoique non déclarée envers Washington s’était alors installée. Les engagements, accords et promesses n’engagent que ceux qui y croient. Depuis deux décennies, la confiance des capitales du Golfe envers les États-Unis s’effrite chaque jour un peu plus. Le retrait d’Irak en 2011, l’absence de réaction forte après les attaques de 2019 et le chaos afghan de 2021 ont gravé une leçon que les concernés ont parfaitement intégrée : Washington se désengage quand le coût monte. Cette incertitude incite donc à la prudence face à une guerre ouverte avec Téhéran. Cela risque sans doute d’être encore une fois le cas aujourd'hui, alors que la hantise d’une guerre longue et destructrice occupe tous les esprits. Les risques d’un conflit prolongé sont plus que probables. Une confrontation directe dégénérerait vite en conflit régional prolongé, à l’image de la guerre Iran-Irak (1980-1988), qui tua plus d’un million de personnes et ruina les deux belligérants. Aujourd’hui, les enjeux seraient pires : destruction des infrastructures énergétiques, fermeture du détroit d’Ormuz, effondrement des investissements étrangers et fuite des capitaux de la zone. Les dirigeants du Golfe, hantés par ces scénarios, priorisent la stabilité et courbent l’échine de façon intelligente. Depuis longtemps, ils ont fait le choix de la priorité au développement économique; un choix aujourd’hui mis à rude épreuve. Les monarchies ont pivoté vers la transformation de leurs économies respectives : Vision 2030 en Arabie saoudite, diversification aux Émirats, investissements qataris mondiaux et autres manifestations de dimensions universelles. Cela a besoin de confiance car il ne faut pas l'oublier ces économies là reposent sur la confiance en premier lieu. Une guerre prolongée menacerait le tourisme, les mégaprojets comme NEOM ou les smart cities. Pour les monarchies du Golf, La doctrine est claire : la stabilité régionale prime sur les affrontements idéologiques. Ce virage s’incarne dans la réconciliation sino-médiée de 2023 entre Riyad et Téhéran, visant à réduire les tensions et à épargner les territoires du Golfe, qui refusent de devenir des champs de bataille indirects. Aujourd'hui quoique menacées, bombardées, provoquées, les monarchies du Golf manifestent intelligemment leur **Refus** d’être entraînées dans un conflit qu'elles n'ont pas décidé. Du moins jusqu'ici, car tout peut basculer à un moment ou un autre. Malgré des coopérations discrètes en matière de sécurité, les pays du Golfe **refusent d’être entraînés dans un conflit au profit d’Israël**. Ce dernier jouit d’une supériorité militaire et nucléaire, mais les ripostes iraniennes frappent aussi et surtout prioritairement les bases et infrastructures économiques et civils arabes. Les coûts retombent sur les Arabes, pas sur Tel-Aviv. Les dirigeants des pays concernés ont appris la leçon. Ils ont vu ce qu'est advenu l’Irak, la Syrie, la Libye et le Yémen, où ces guerres par procuration entre puissances ont laissé des États exsangues, soulignant les pièges qu’induit fatalement l’embrasement. Dans ces dynamiques, le **Maroc allié stratégique et très écouté des pays du Golf,** émerge comme un acteur de désescalade. **Sous l’impulsion du roi Mohammed VI, la voix modératrice du Maroc prône la stabilité régionale, des solutions diplomatiques et la coopération Sud-Sud pour favoriser la reconstruction politique et les échanges économiques.** C’est dans ce contexte qu’il faut apprécier les contacts permanents de Sa Majesté avec les sultans et émirs de la région. C'est effectivement **un calcul lucide** alors que le Maroc est l'un des rares de la région à avoir volontairement coupé court à toutes relations avec les Mollahs depuis déjà longtemps. **La prudence des États du Golfe transcende la simple méfiance envers les États-Unis. Elle découle d’un calcul perspicace qui met en équation la vulnérabilité face à l’Iran, la fiabilité américaine incertaine, le risque d’une guerre ruineuse et la primauté du développement.** Leur mantra ? Éviter à tout prix de devenir le théâtre d’affrontements entre puissances régionales et autres lointaines. C’est ainsi qu’il faut comprendre leur réserve et leur refus de riposter de manière impulsive. Avoir les nerfs à fleur de peau n’est pas ce qu’il faut. Cependant les choses peuvent changer si l’Iran ne revient pas à la raison et laisse en paix une région qui, même hostile sur le plan idéologique, ne va jamais aller jusqu’à l’attaquer. Elle n’en aura jamais les moyens sans alliés potentiels et n’a aucun intérêt à le faire avec l’aide d’autres parties. Une telle situation serait ruineuse pour toute la région y compris l'Iran; une éventualité que personne ne doit souhaiter, apparemment.
Aziz Daouda Aziz Daouda

Aziz Daouda

Directeur Technique et du Développement de la Confédération Africaine d'Athlétisme. Passionné du Maroc, passionné d'Afrique. Concerné par ce qui se passe, formulant mon point de vue quand j'en ai un. Humaniste, j'essaye de l'être, humain je veux l'être. Mon histoire est intimement liée à l'athlétisme marocain et mondial. J'ai eu le privilège de participer à la gloire de mon pays .


9100

33.0

Oil Taxation, Aid Efficiency, and Social Justice: What Strategy for Morocco Facing Energy Shocks? 512

Aziz Daouda, 2 d.
- Politics - Business -
2.8 min read.
When the Russia-Ukraine war broke out, global energy markets were brutally disrupted. The barrel price crossed historic thresholds, triggering an immediate surge in pump prices in net importer countries like Morocco. In response, the government opted for direct aid to transporters to contain inflation and prevent pass-through to goods and services prices. However, the experience revealed its limits. Despite the subsidies, transport prices did indeed rise, pulling up the cost of all products and services in their wake. This gap between intention and reality raises a central question: how to effectively cushion an energy shock in a liberalized economy without widening inequalities or fueling rents? The decision to specifically aid transporters rested on the implicit assumption that they would act as shock absorbers, absorbing part of the increase. Yet, in a market with tight margins and fierce competition, it is economically rational for operators to pass on costs to fares, despite public support. Several factors explain this relative failure: - Lack of binding mechanisms. No strict obligation prevented pass-through to final prices. - Windfall effect. Some companies received aid without altering their pricing policy. - Targeting difficulties. Aid benefited a specific segment without ensuring a broad, lasting impact on the economy. This observation is all the more troubling since Morocco remains heavily dependent on refined product imports following the closure of the Samir refinery. Today, tensions around the Strait of Hormuz are reigniting fears of a new oil shock. This maritime corridor, through which about 20% of global oil transits, is a critical chokepoint in worldwide energy supply. Any disruption sends prices soaring and, mechanically, pump prices in Morocco. States worldwide have adopted varied strategies, with mixed results: - Price caps. Effectiveness is immediate, with tariff shields on electricity and gas, sometimes paired with fuel caps. These measures contain short-term inflation at the cost of very high budgetary expense, disincentives to energy sobriety, and windfalls for the wealthiest consumers. - Direct transfers. A social but imperfect response. Some countries issued energy checks or lump-sum aid to households. Politically popular, these tools are often criticized for their inflationary nature, lack of precise targeting, and risk of fostering dependence on one-off aid. - Tax modulation, a structural lever. Several states, like Austria, Spain, Italy, or Japan, chose to temporarily cut fuel taxes to limit pump price hikes. This approach directly affects the final price paid by all consumers, without intermediaries. It relies on principles of readability and shared effort between the state and users. In Morocco's case, a significant portion of the pump price consists of taxes—such as TIC and VAT—which heavily influence the per-liter price and give the state major leverage in price formation. Temporarily reducing these taxes would establish an explicit shock-sharing mechanism between the state and citizens, rather than concentrating aid on one sector. This option offers several advantages: - Universality: it benefits everyone, from truck drivers to salaried workers using their car for commuting. - Transparency: the reduction is immediately visible at the pump, boosting trust and the readability of public action. - Economic efficiency: it directly lowers fuel costs. - Social justice: by forgoing part of the fiscal rent on a now-essential product, the state clearly shoulders its share of the effort. Targeted and temporary reduction of oil taxation thus emerges as the most effective and democratic solution to cushion an energy quake. This path is not new in Moroccan debate, as evidenced by the widespread support via the Compensation Fund, phased out from 2015 onward. Lightening fuel costs through subsidies has already been implemented without achieving the theoretically expected results. Need we remind? Any tax reduction, if enacted, cannot be unlimited or permanent but must be strictly time-bound, calibrated to budgetary capacity, and linked to broader hydrocarbon market reform (competition, margins, strategic storage, reopening or alternative to national refining capacity). In other words, tax modulation should not be a short-term reflex but the tool of a comprehensive energy security strategy. Morocco faces a strategic choice: persist with one-off aid to transporters or embrace shock-sharing via taxation. If it chooses the latter and loses short-term revenue, it will gain in social cohesion and economic predictability, with three key lessons: - Prioritize direct mechanisms via taxation, a key pump price component, as the most effective tool for rapid, universal, and democratic action. - Avoid market distortions. Targeted aid without strict controls produces opposite effects; it fuels rents without protecting the end consumer. - Think long-term. Energy issues cannot be divorced from industrial sovereignty (refining, storage) and state budgetary resilience. Beyond conjunctural management, it is a true social contract around energy that must be rethought. In a country where the car is both a work tool, a means of access to essential services, and a vector of mobility, fuel price is a deeply political issue at the intersection of social justice and budgetary sustainability. Rather than multiplying one-off devices for a single sector, Morocco would benefit from a more systemic approach based on fiscal transparency, equity, and economic efficiency. Fuel tax modulation, as a universal and immediate lever, better meets democratic demands. It is a more credible response to current shocks and those to come.

The Strategic Prudence of Gulf Monarchies: A Vital Calculus in the Face of Iran and American Uncertainties... 515

Aziz Daouda, 2 d.
- World Politics - Business -
2.6 min read.
The Gulf monarchies: Saudi Arabia, United Arab Emirates, Qatar, or Kuwait, embody a glaring strategic vulnerability. Their shallow territorial depth and narrow demographics expose vital infrastructure: airports, ports, refineries, gas terminals, headquarters of major companies, to rapid strikes by potential enemies from the region and beyond. Iran, for instance, with its arsenal of ballistic missiles, drones, and asymmetric naval forces, coupled with the belligerent philosophy of its regime, could paralyze them in the blink of an eye. The 2019 attack on Aramco's oil facilities at Abqaiq and Khurais provides irrefutable proof: Saudi production had then plummeted by half. To the Saudis' surprise, the Americans remained evasive and barely retaliated, at least not in a clear and direct manner. For Riyadh, this silence was a telling signal: allies are no longer infallible. Signed agreements can remain dead letters at the whim of one party, depending of course on the interests of the moment and changing circumstances. A growing, though undeclared, distrust of Washington had then taken hold. Commitments, agreements, and promises only bind those who believe in them. Over the past two decades, trust in the United States among Gulf capitals has eroded a little more each day. The 2011 withdrawal from Iraq, the lack of a strong response after the 2019 attacks, and the Afghan chaos of 2021 have ingrained a lesson that those concerned have fully internalized: Washington disengages when the cost rises. This uncertainty thus encourages prudence in the face of open war with Tehran. It will likely be the case again today, as the specter of a long and destructive war occupies all minds. The risks of a prolonged conflict are more than probable. A direct confrontation would quickly degenerate into a prolonged regional conflict, akin to the Iran-Iraq War (1980-1988), which killed over a million people and ruined both belligerents. Today, the stakes would be worse: destruction of energy infrastructure, closure of the Strait of Hormuz, collapse of foreign investments, and capital flight from the area. Gulf leaders, haunted by these scenarios, prioritize stability and intelligently bow their heads. For a long time, they have chosen to prioritize economic development, a choice now put to a severe test. The monarchies have pivoted toward transforming their respective economies: Saudi Arabia's Vision 2030, diversification in the UAE, Qatari global investments, and other manifestations of universal scope. This requires confidence, for it must not be forgotten that these economies fundamentally rest on trust. A prolonged war would threaten tourism, megaprojects like NEOM or smart cities. For the Gulf monarchies, the doctrine is clear: regional stability trumps ideological confrontations. This shift is embodied in the China-mediated reconciliation of 2023 between Riyadh and Tehran, aimed at reducing tensions and sparing Gulf territories, which refuse to become indirect battlefields. Today, though threatened, bombed, and provoked, the Gulf monarchies intelligently demonstrate their refusal to be dragged into a conflict they did not choose. At least for now, as everything could tip at any moment. Despite discreet security cooperations, Gulf countries refuse to be drawn into a conflict for Israel's benefit. The latter enjoys military and nuclear superiority, but Iranian retaliations strike primarily, and above all, Arab bases, economic, and civilian infrastructure. The costs fall on the Arabs, not Tel Aviv. The leaders of the countries concerned have learned the lesson. They have seen what became of Iraq, Syria, Libya, and Yemen, where proxy wars between powers left states bloodless, highlighting the fatal traps that ignition inevitably brings. In these dynamics, Morocco, a strategic ally and highly regarded voice among Gulf countries, emerges as a de-escalation actor. Under King Mohammed VI's impetus, Morocco's moderating voice advocates regional stability, diplomatic solutions, and South-South cooperation to foster political reconstruction and economic exchanges. It is in this context that one must appreciate His Majesty's permanent contacts with the sultans and emirs of the region. This is indeed a lucid calculus, as Morocco is one of the rare countries in the region to have voluntarily severed all ties with the Mullahs long ago. The prudence of Gulf states transcends mere distrust of the United States. It stems from a perspicacious calculus that factors in vulnerability to Iran, uncertain American reliability, the risk of a ruinous war, and the primacy of development. Their mantra? Avoid at all costs becoming the theater of confrontations between regional powers and distant others. This is how their reserve and refusal to retaliate impulsively must be understood. Having nerves on edge is not what's needed. However, things could change if Iran does not come to its senses and leaves a region that, even ideologically hostile, will never go so far as to attack it alone. It lacks the means without potential allies and has no interest in doing so with others' help. Such a situation would be ruinous for the entire region, including Iran, an outcome no one should wish for, apparently.

Africa Cup of Nations 2025: When the Victim Becomes the Culprit... 1232

Aziz Daouda, 5 d.
- Politics - Sports -
2.6 min read.
The reaction of Tunisian Hatem Trabelsi, former defender for Ajax Amsterdam and Manchester City, and a beIN consultant for several years, to the CAF Appeal Jury's decision, widely shared on social media, goes beyond mere sports commentary. It subtly reveals the narrative tensions, divergent perceptions, and symbolic stakes surrounding Morocco's successes in African football today. In his statement, Hatem Trabelsi highlights a classic phenomenon in African competitions under the Confederation of African Football (CAF): suspicion and discredit. Whatever the outcome, Morocco's victory seemed destined for contestation. If Brahim Díaz had scored, some would have cried arbitral error; if the Moroccan win had been decisive, it would have been labeled a "setup"; arising from a regulatory decision after the opponent's withdrawal, it becomes "proof of corruption." This critical lens isn't based solely on facts, but on a structural distrust of African sports institutions and their governance. It's the daily sport of Africans: nothing is accepted without suspicion, without accusations of corruption. Even presidential elections rarely escape it. The controversy actually exposes the narrative fractures generated by any decision, even the fairest. Over the past decade, Morocco has established itself as a central player in continental football. The kingdom has massively invested in infrastructure, training, and sports diplomacy. The results speak for themselves: Historic semi-final at the FIFA World Cup 2022. Multiplication of youth category titles. Regular hosting of African competitions. Growing appeal to binational players, like Brahim Díaz and many others. Morocco did it for itself, while naively believing it was good to share the benefits with the continent. Did the continent really want it? This rise fits into a broader soft power strategy, where sport becomes a lever for regional and international influence. But Morocco, the new power in African football, disturbs. Its success breeds jealousy and contestation. Trabelsi's point underscores an observed reality: success invites contestation. In an African football landscape historically marked by fluctuating balances between Egypt, Cameroon, Nigeria, and Senegal, the emergence of a structured, high-performing Morocco has sparked resistance. The Moroccan national team embodies a new dominance, built on sporting talent as much as organizational rigor, a transformation aligned with the country's overall trajectory. This fuels suspicious discourse, especially when refereeing or administrative decisions seem to favor it, rightly or wrongly. In the background, the controversy points to a deeper issue: the CAF's credibility. Recurrent accusations of favoritism, "backroom deals," or opaque governance don't target just Morocco, but the entire system. It's the narrative cultivated by one or two African countries to which nothing succeeds. As the African is too often consigned to the role of perennial victim, this discourse finds fertile ground to impose itself as reality. In this context, every decision becomes controversial, amplified by social media, press, and statements from governments, federations, or opportunists seeking visibility. Victimization, a recurrent sentiment in Africa, turns the slightest incident, or any decision, into a prism of suspicion. Trabelsi's outburst isn't just support for Morocco; he himself knows the kingdom doesn't need it. It highlights a battle of narratives around contemporary African football: between sporting merit and political suspicions, national pride and regional solidarities. Morocco, the rising power, finds itself at the heart of these tensions. As often in sports history, success is measured not only in trophies, but in the ability to impose a legitimate narrative. The real challenge for African football isn't designating a winner, but restoring collective trust in the rules of the game. Beyond the match, a battle of narratives is underway, where institutional credibility is the Gordian knot. The bad faith of some is evident. In a barely veiled attempt to poison relations between two peoples bound by centuries of brotherhood, a certain gaucho-Parisian press has launched a sordid discredit campaign, exploiting the weakness of the Moroccan national narrative, not for lack of content or relevance, but for its naivety in believing that good faith always prevails. Recent history proves otherwise. Those who long tormented Morocco for reclaiming part of its territory are the same ones howling on their sets or blackening paper, fueling a narrative aimed at harming the kingdom and sowing doubt about everything it undertakes. This won't stop; preparation is needed, especially after the 2026 World Cup. This is how to interpret Trabelsi's just and inspired words: it's time to build a Moroccan national narrative on national soil, without waiting for others, from abroad, to impose it through hatred and discredit. Today, Morocco outpaces its closest neighbors, which bothers them, enrages them, even drives them mad. The truth is they're profound hypogiaphobes, dreading their responsibilities to their own peoples. As for the 2025 AFCON, in two months, no one will talk about it anymore. It will boil down to a second well-deserved star on the Moroccan jersey, a sign that the CAF has come to its senses and will now apply its own rules.