Think Forward.

L’Iran face à la géographie : la dangereuse illusion de la puissance... 159

Aziz Daouda, 5 d.
- World Politics - History -
3.3 min read.
Dans toute réflexion géopolitique sérieuse, il existe une donnée qui ne change jamais: la géographie. Les alliances évoluent, les régimes passent, les idéologies s’éteignent ou renaissent, mais la géographie demeure. Elle impose ses contraintes, ses limites et parfois ses sanctions. L’Iran, en multipliant les actions militaires et les provocations contre plusieurs pays arabes de son voisinage, semble aujourd’hui ignorer cette règle fondamentale. **En bombardant ou en menaçant des territoires situés dans son environnement immédiat, Téhéran agit comme si ses adversaires étaient uniquement les États-Unis ou Israël et loge son voisinage à la même enseigne. Or, dans les faits, ce ne sont pas Washington ni Tel-Aviv qui se trouvent à ses frontières immédiates. Ceux qui vivent à côté de l’Iran aujourd’hui et qui continueront d’y vivre demain sont d’abord les États arabes de la région ayant réussi à construire une grande économie de confiance et qui accueillent des millions de ressortissants et d'investisseurs du monde entier.** La géographie est une donnée incontournable de la politique internationale. Les États peuvent changer de stratégie, mais ils ne peuvent pas changer de voisins. Cette réalité est au cœur de la pensée de nombreux géopoliticiens, de Halford Mackinder à Nicholas Spykman, pour qui la position géographique d’un État détermine largement ses marges de manœuvre stratégiques. La géographie est une contrainte permanente de la puissance. Les voisins de l'Est du Maroc devraient aussi le comprendre. L’Iran, puissance régionale indéniable, partage ses frontières ou son espace stratégique immédiat avec le monde arabe : l’Irak, les monarchies du Golfe, la péninsule arabique et, plus largement, l’ensemble du Moyen-Orient. En s’engageant dans une politique d’affrontement permanent, Téhéran prend le risque de transformer cet environnement en un cercle d’hostilité durable. Or l’histoire montre qu’aucune puissance ne peut prospérer durablement si elle est entourée d’ennemis. L’illusion impériale est en train de lui jouer un vilain tour. Les dirigeants iraniens semblent parfois agir comme si l’Iran pouvait redevenir la grande puissance impériale qu’il fut autrefois. Pourtant, l’époque de l’Empire perse est révolue. Les structures politiques, économiques et démographiques du monde contemporain n’ont plus rien à voir avec celles de l’Antiquité ou même du XIXe siècle. On ne conquiert plus le monde à dos de cheval accompagné de quelques éléphants. Ils ont eux mêmes conquit le pays avec des méthodes mises généreusement à leur disposition par les occidentaux... **L’Iran d’aujourd’hui est un État-nation complexe, traversé par de nombreuses diversités internes. Sa population n’est pas homogène. Aux côtés des Perses vivent des Azéris, des Kurdes, des Baloutches, des Turkmènes et des Arabes, et ce ne sont pas des minorités négligeables.**Cette mosaïque ethnique constitue une richesse culturelle, mais elle peut également se transformer en une fragilité politique si les tensions régionales viennent alimenter des fractures internes. Dans ce contexte, mener une politique agressive contre des populations voisines peut apparaître comme une stratégie dangereuse. Comment justifier un affrontement durable avec des peuples qui ont leurs propres représentants et communautés au sein même des frontières iraniennes ? **Depuis la mutation en République islamique en 1979, l'Iran s’est construit autour d’une ambition : exporter son modèle idéologique et politique et étendre son influence sur la région et au delà. Cette logique a conduit à la création de réseaux d’influence et de groupes armés dans plusieurs pays du Moyen-Orient. Une sorte de vengeance pour un ressentiment lointain, qui ne trouve justification que sous les turbans noirs ou blancs d’un reliquat d’une vieille histoire.** Plus de quarante ans après, cette stratégie montre bien ses limites. L’idéologie "révolutionnaire" qui animait le régime en 1979 n’a plus la même capacité de mobilisation dans un Moyen-Orient profondément transformé. Les sociétés de la région aspirent davantage à la stabilité, au développement économique et à la sécurité qu’à des projets révolutionnaires transnationaux. Le piège de l’idéologie s’est vite refermé sur ses poseurs. En persistant dans une politique d’expansion idéologique, l’Iran risque de se retrouver isolé non seulement sur la scène internationale, mais aussi dans son propre environnement régional. Le risque d’une implosion interne n’est pas exclu non plus. Une politique extérieure agressive peut parfois renforcer un régime à court terme en mobilisant le sentiment national. Mais à long terme, elle peut produire l’effet inverse. Les sanctions économiques, l’isolement diplomatique et les tensions militaires finissent par peser lourdement sur les sociétés. **Ni les ressources pétrolières de l’Iran ni la "puissance" de ses forces armées, notamment celles de ses Gardiens de la révolution islamique, ne peuvent indéfiniment compenser les conséquences d’une confrontation permanente avec l’environnement régional et international.** L’histoire est pleine d’exemples d’États puissants qui se sont fragilisés en multipliant les ennemis. L’expérience de l’Empire perse lui-même en constitue une illustration : son expansion excessive et l’accumulation d’adversaires ont contribué à sa chute face aux armées d’Alexandre le Grand. *L’Iran possède pourtant l’une des histoires les plus riches et les plus anciennes du monde. Des dynasties prestigieuses, des traditions intellectuelles et culturelles profondes, ainsi qu’une longue expérience des relations internationales. Cette richesse rare aurait pu inspirer une politique de puissance plus prudente et plus réaliste.* Les dirigeants actuels feraient peut-être bien de réviser chaque jour leur propre histoire nationale. Elle montre que la survie et la prospérité des États reposent rarement sur l’hostilité généralisée envers leur environnement. La géopolitique rappelle une vérité simple : on peut choisir ses alliés, mais on ne choisit pas ses voisins. L’Iran est condamné, au sens géographique du terme, à vivre aux côtés du monde arabe. S’il continue à alimenter les tensions et les conflits dans cet espace, il risque de créer un environnement durablement hostile qui finira par se retourner contre lui. Une puissance régionale ne disparaît pas toujours sous les coups d’un ennemi extérieur ; elle peut aussi s’effondrer sous le poids des tensions qu’elle a elle-même contribué à créer. **L’avenir de l’Iran dépendra donc moins de sa capacité à projeter sa force que de sa capacité à accepter les réalités de la géographie. Car en politique comme en géopolitique, ignorer la géographie revient souvent à préparer sa propre crise et à creuser sa propre tombe avant de s’y installer à jamais. L’illusion de la puissance infinie n’est qu’une chimère, pas plus grande que la dimension d’un turban, qu’il soit noir ou blanc.**
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 .


9000

33.0

CAF: The End of Ambiguities, Return of the Rules... 758

Aziz Daouda, 3 d.
- Sports -
1.7 min read.
The recent decision by the CAF Appeal Jury marks a major turning point in African football governance. Beyond the specific case of the 2025 AFCON final between Morocco and Senegal, a profound institutional evolution seems to be taking shape: that of a CAF finally aligned, without complacency, with FIFA's normative standards. **A Legally Grounded and Assumed Decision** In its official statement, the Appeal Jury annulled the first-instance decision and declared Senegal forfeit, in strict application of articles 82 and 84 of the competition regulations. The match is thus homologated with a 3-0 score in favor of Morocco. The central point is crystal clear: the Senegalese team's behavior, particularly leaving the pitch without authorization, constitutes a clear violation of the disciplinary rules. These provisions allow no political or emotional interpretation: they mechanically impose the forfeit sanction. By validating this strict reading, the CAF breaks with a long-criticized practice: a sometimes hesitant, even accommodating, management of contentious situations. **The End of a Culture of Exception** For years, African football has suffered from a structural ailment: inconsistency in applying regulations. Some decisions seemed driven more by political balances than by the letter of the law. Yet, in this case, the Appeal Jury did exactly the opposite: It acknowledged the rules violation; it legally reclassified the facts; and it automatically applied the prescribed sanction. This triad is precisely what underpins the credibility of major international sports institutions, starting with FIFA. This is therefore not just a sporting decision: it is an assertion of authority. A strong signal for African football governance. This decision comes at a time when the CAF is under increasing scrutiny, particularly after several disputes brought before the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS), which have sometimes highlighted inconsistencies or weaknesses in rule application. By returning to a strict reading of its own texts, the CAF sends several messages: To federations: regulations are non-negotiable. To players and staff: anti-sportsmanlike behavior will have immediate consequences. To the international community: African football fully embraces the global rule of law in sport. **A Balanced and Credible Decision** Notably, the Appeal Jury did not limit itself to ruling in Morocco's favor. It also confirmed certain responsibilities on the Moroccan side, particularly regarding peripheral incidents (ball boys, laser use), while adjusting the sanctions. This point is essential: it bolsters the decision's credibility. Strong sports justice is not partisan justice, but coherent justice. **Towards a New Era of Rigor?** This verdict could set a precedent. It reminds us that African football can no longer afford ambiguities at a time when economic stakes are exploding, international visibility is growing, and governance standards are becoming universal. Alignment with FIFA rules is not an option: it is a necessity for the credibility of African competitions. A truly salutary break. By strictly applying its regulations, without yielding to pressure or political considerations, the CAF sends a long-awaited signal. This is not simply one team's victory over another. It is the victory of law over arbitrariness. And perhaps, finally, the beginning of a stronger, fairer, and more respected CAF.

Morocco: 113 kg thrown away per person, the imperative of an anti-food waste strategy... 1076

Aziz Daouda, 5 d.
- Politics - Society - Business -
2.4 min read.
The latest opinion, prepared by the Economic, Social, and Environmental Council (CESE) as part of a self-referral, is titled “Food Loss and Waste in Morocco: Scale of the Phenomenon and Challenges for Effective Intervention.” It analyzes the causes of this phenomenon and its repercussions at the national level, while proposing levers to sustainably transform production, distribution, and consumption patterns. The goal is to align these changes with national priorities in terms of sustainability, food sovereignty, and security. This phenomenon is global, and its impacts continue to grow. In Morocco, its scale and specific effects deserve particular attention, which is why this opinion is highly important and should not remain a dead letter. It represents a genuine theme for the next electoral campaign, provided that political parties are capable of generating ideas in this direction. On a global scale, according to the United Nations Environment Programme, the food value chain recorded a loss of about 13.2% between harvest and retail sale in 2022. Waste at the household, restaurant, and retail levels then accounted for nearly 19% of total food production. The trend is similar in Morocco. According to the 2024 Food Waste Index, Moroccan households threw away around 2.4 million tons of food in 2022, or 113 kg per person per year, compared to 91 kg in 2021. Losses and waste occur at all stages of the food value chain. In the initial phases, production, harvest, storage, and transport, certain sectors, particularly fruits, vegetables, and cereals, record losses of 20 to 40%. At later stages, waste stems from commercial practices and inadequate behaviors: excessive purchases, lack of knowledge about preservation methods, and low valorization of unsold goods. This leads to high economic and social costs. These losses impose significant burdens on producers and distributors, reduce food availability, and heighten the vulnerability of low-income populations. They also put pressure on natural resources: the CESE estimates that 6.1 billion m³ of water is mobilized annually to produce food that will never be consumed. Food waste, moreover, pollutes and contributes to greenhouse gas emissions, underscoring the urgency of greater coordination. To date, institutional responses, where they exist, remain fragmented and ineffective. Despite some public and private initiatives, actions are scattered due to the lack of a specific legal framework, an integrated national vision, and effective governance. The CESE rightly considers reducing these losses and waste a major strategic challenge, to be placed at the heart of a national strategy for sustainable food. This would strengthen food sovereignty and security, preserve resources, rationalize imports and inputs, and promote a more equitable and resilient model in the face of crises. In this context, the Council recommends a specific action plan, integrable into the national strategy, with key recommendations: - Adopt a law against food loss and waste, prohibiting the destruction of unsold goods and facilitating donations to associations, social institutions, and food banks. - Clarify consumption dates: “to be consumed by” (health safety) and “best before” (quality). - Establish multisectoral governance involving public authorities, the private sector, and civil society. - Create a national observatory to collect data, produce indicators, and propose corrective measures. - Integrate waste reduction targets into public policies, particularly for catering in hospitals, schools, social centers, and prisons. - Develop storage and transport infrastructure, such as solar-powered refrigerated warehouses in agricultural regions. - Promote short supply chains to limit intermediaries and transport losses. - Encourage recycling of surpluses, such as solidarity fridges and food donations. The fight against food loss and waste goes beyond mere resource management: it is a lever for food security, agricultural efficiency, and environmental preservation. In a context of water scarcity, climate pressures, and growing needs, this battle is imperative for a sustainable and resilient Moroccan food system. Ultimately, it will effectively curb inflation and support the national economy. This strategy has every chance of succeeding, thanks to cultural and religious factors. Waste (isrâf or tabdhîr) is religiously prohibited as a sign of ingratitude toward divine blessings. The Quran states: “Eat and drink, but do not commit excess, for Allah does not love the wasteful,” Surah al-A‘râf. The use of goods is permitted, but excess is condemned. The scale of this phenomenon in Morocco makes it an urgent political issue, requiring effective and lasting action. It could be a true program for the next executive, if it becomes aware of it.

AI development has reached a limit and it is not hardware 1213

Tariq Daouda, 5 d.
There is a shortage of GPUs, there is a shortage of RAM, there is a shortage of electricity. Still, none of the above is the real limiting factor: it's a skill and research issue. For more than a decade now, the AI world has been dominated by an open-source arms race whose effect has been a near total focus on engineering to the detriment of research and meaningful developments. The result has been over engineered proof-of-concepts, chief amongst them being Transformers. The original paper mostly demonstrated that if you put attention over everything, and several of them, you can beat LSTMs. Is it a surprising result, not so much. This is somewhat morally similar to Res-nets, that showed that the more you connect layers the better the results. That's also not very surprising. Both significantly increased the size of models. These are mostly engineering innovations. Although they did open interesting theoretical questions, they did not come from strong theoretical foundations. They come from trial and errors copy-pasting existing technologies and connecting them in new ways. And then, these technologies got themselves copy-pasted and reconnected. Fast forward today we have massive behemoths that are draining the computational ressources of the world. Even AI curricula followed this trend. Today, most only very quickly skim over the mathematical and theoretical foundations. Focusing more and more on building pieces of increasing complexity while dodging explanations of their inner workings. This has culminated in today's "AI builders" trend, where fully trained LLM assembly lines are stringed together. Here is the true limitation of AI. This mindset has been pushed so far that we have reached a physical limit. Now we can either build a much bigger Nvidia, produce a 100X more RAM, lower the price of KW/h to unseen levels. Or, go back to the theory and design models that are more optimal. Optimal not because they are distilled, not because they use lower precision, but because they don't rely on Transformers, nor diffusion, or any of the very costly paradigms currently use, in the shape and form are currently used. Just like physical computers have been shrinked to sit in the palm of your hand. Immaterial AI models can also be made smaller.

Vice Of The Pacifist; Virtue of The Martial 1217

Satta Abraham, 6 d.
- History - Philosophy -
3.5 min read.
Life is not measured by the number of breaths we take or the length of our survival. Life is measured by integrity, by the courage to uphold principle even when the world threatens to extinguish us. Who you are is inseparable from what you stand for. To compromise principle for comfort, safety, or the approval of others is not merely cowardice; it is existential death. The body may endure, but the self, the moral and existential self, ceases to exist. Atoms and cells continue to function, yet the human being has already perished. As Jean-Paul Sartre argued, “Man is nothing else but what he makes of himself,” and to abandon principle is to negate the self one has the responsibility to define. Integrity is costly. Courage is its currency. Only those willing to risk everything, including their life, reputation, and comfort, can truly exist. Those unwilling to pay this cost are the pacifists, the appeasers, and the virtue-signaling opportunists. They prioritize convenience and safety over principle. They negotiate with evil, bow to tyrants, and perform morality without risk. History offers many such examples: the collaborators who betrayed Omar Mukhtar to the Italians, the political allies who handed Patrice Lumumba to colonial powers, and the appeasers who enabled Hitler’s advance. These individuals survive physically, yet morally and existentially, they are already dead. Friedrich Nietzsche observed, “He who has a why to live can bear almost any how.” To those without a why defined by principle, survival is hollow. Martial virtue is fundamentally different from mere courage. Courage without the exertion of force, without the aggression necessary to impose principle, is insufficient to preserve integrity. To be martial is to act decisively, to shape reality, to confront danger proactively, and to preserve principle against overwhelming odds. Martial virtue exists on battlefields, in courts, in laboratories, and in the halls of governance. It is the combination of courage, principle, strategic intelligence, and decisive action. As Aristotle noted, virtue is an activity of the soul in accordance with reason, and the highest virtues manifest precisely when reason guides decisive action under risk. Omar Mukhtar, the Lion of the Desert, confronted Italian colonization of Libya. He did not merely resist; he organized, strategized, and struck decisively against an enemy that vastly outnumbered him. For twenty years he led guerilla campaigns, forcing the Italians to respect his operations. Every attack and maneuver carried mortal risk. He accepted this risk because surrender or compromise would have meant the death of principle, the erasure of Libya’s sovereignty, and his own existential annihilation. William Wallace faced England’s conquest of Scotland. Survival alone was impossible without aggressive action. Wallace led assaults to reclaim territory, inspired revolt, and refused offers of mercy that would have preserved his life at the cost of principle. He was captured and executed, yet he exists eternally in history because he acted decisively to defend what defined him. The Scottish nobles who swore fealty to England preserved their land and life, but their essence, the part of them that could stand, act, and uphold principle, was gone. Martial virtue is not limited to armies or battlefields. It manifests wherever principle must be imposed through courage, strategic intelligence, and force. Socrates challenged the authorities of Athens, exposing hypocrisy and questioning the foundations of civic belief. He could have compromised or moderated his questions, but to do so would have been death to the self that defined him. By speaking truth boldly and confronting power with reason, Socrates acted decisively. He imposed intellectual force upon his society, and by accepting the consequences, he lived fully even as his body was executed. Bennet Omalu confronted the National Football League and a culture determined to ignore the dangers of repeated head trauma. He could have preserved his career by silence, yet he persisted. He published his research, confronted institutional power, and forced the truth into public consciousness. He took these risks because moral and existential survival demanded it. Without such action, his courage would have been meaningless, and the self defined by principle would have died. Nikola Tesla defied societal and corporate pressures to pursue revolutionary inventions. He could have sought compromise, easy gains, or social approval, but he did not. He exerted intellectual and inventive force, shaping reality despite ridicule and financial hardship. The self defined by principle and vision persisted because he risked everything for its preservation. Not all who risk life fully exercise martial virtue. Patrice Lumumba, the first Prime Minister of Congo, faced Belgian and Western exploitation with courage and principle. Yet he lacked the strategic and martial capacity to exert force decisively. He was betrayed, outmaneuvered, and executed. Courage alone preserved moral integrity partially, but without martial action, principle could not survive. Gandhi and Martin Luther King Jr. acted courageously, risking life and liberty, yet they operated within quasi-democratic structures where outcomes could be achieved without aggressive force. They could leverage social systems and public opinion to preserve principle. Their courage was admirable, but it did not require the full exertion of martial power. These figures are morally admirable but occupy the silver lining of pacifist mentality: courageous, principled, but not fully martial. The true vice lies with those who never risk principle. Pacifists, appeasers, and virtue-signaling opportunists compromise principle to preserve comfort, safety, or social standing. They enable tyranny, betray allies, and perform morality without cost. Life without principle is death disguised as survival. Immanuel Kant reminds us that morality demands duty independent of self-interest. To act otherwise is to forfeit existence in the truest sense. Existence is inseparable from courage, principle, and the exertion of force to defend or impose truth. To compromise, avoid risk, or surrender for comfort is to die before the body ceases. To act decisively, aggressively, and strategically in defense of what defines you is to live fully. The martial may fall physically, yet they exist fully in history, morality, and existential reality. The pacifist survives physically, yet has already died in every meaningful sense. Courage is the currency. Principle is the inheritance. Strategic action and the exertion of force are the tools. Only those willing to wield them truly live. Who you are is inseparable from what you stand for. Compromise it, and you do not exist. Survival without principle is not life. To risk everything to uphold it is to truly live.
bluwr.com/

Christopher Ross or Diplomacy Against the Current 1266

Aziz Daouda, 6 d.
It sometimes happens that diplomats, once their mission is complete, opt for the discretion demanded by their former status. Others prefer to continue intervening in debates they themselves helped complicate. Christopher Ross clearly belongs to this second category. In a recent article, the former envoy for the Moroccan Sahara has once again taken a stance on this sensitive issue. With the benefit of hindsight, his analysis has gained neither nuance nor critical distance. Reading his text suggests quite the opposite: the same interpretive framework, the same assumptions, and above all, the same indulgence toward Algiers. This persistence raises a fundamental question: what is Ross seeking today by intervening again in a dossier where he was one of the most contested mediators? Appointed in 2009 by Ban Ki-moon, he succeeded a series of envoys who had faced the same difficulty: breaking out of a diplomatic impasse inherited from the Cold War. This conflict indeed traces its roots to the geopolitical upheavals of the 1970s. Morocco consolidated its historical sovereignty over the region in 1975, prompting Spain's withdrawal, while the Polisario, backed politically, financially, and militarily by Algeria and Libya, claimed the creation of an independent state. The dossier took on an international dimension with the creation, in 1991, of the MINURSO, tasked with supervising a referendum; an idea proposed by the late Hassan II in a speech delivered in Nairobi at an OAU summit. Very quickly, the obstacles created by the Polisario, particularly regarding voter identification, made this project nearly impossible, and the process stalled. It was then that Morocco proposed, in 2007, a major political initiative: a plan for broad autonomy for the southern provinces under Moroccan sovereignty. The project was presented to the Security Council as a realistic and pragmatic solution and garnered growing international support, described as "serious and credible" in several resolutions. It marked a true turning point in diplomatic realism. Since then, the diplomatic landscape around the Sahara has profoundly evolved. Numerous states now view Morocco's autonomy plan as the most credible basis for a lasting political solution. In 2020, the Trump administration officially announced recognition of Morocco's sovereignty over the Sahara, a major turning point in the dossier's diplomatic balance. In its wake, several Western powers reaffirmed their support for the autonomy plan, while Arab, European, and African countries opened consulates in Laâyoune or Dakhla, de facto recognizing Moroccan administration of the territory. Within the UN, the terminology used in Security Council resolutions has also evolved: the notion of a "realistic, pragmatic, and durable political solution" has become the guiding principle of the process. This shift toward a pragmatic approach reflects a simple reality: the referendum envisioned in the 1990s is no longer seen as a viable option. It is precisely this diplomatic turning point that Ross, still prisoner to an outdated vision, seems to refuse to integrate. In his recent statements, he continues to defend an interpretation of the conflict harking back to a bygone era, clinging to diplomatic frameworks long surpassed by geopolitical realities. This stance even calls into question the man's integrity. During his tenure, the Kingdom had already expressed serious reservations about his impartiality and officially demanded his replacement in 2012, as trust had been gravely undermined. A mediator, by definition, must maintain equitable distance between the parties. When that distance vanishes, mediation loses its credibility. In fact, Ross never truly dispelled suspicions of closeness to the Algerian position. Algeria's role in this conflict is central. One of the most controversial points in his discourse concerns precisely Algiers' place in the dossier. For fifty years, Algeria has officially claimed to be merely an "observing country" in this conflict. The diplomatic and strategic reality is entirely different. Algiers hosts, arms, and finances the Polisario, and shelters thousands of refugees in Tindouf, a significant portion of whom are not even from the territory in question. There is little doubt that the conflict is primarily a dispute pitting Algeria against Morocco, an analysis now widely shared by the main international actors. No lasting solution can emerge without Algiers' direct involvement in the negotiations. In this context, Ross's repeated positions appear anachronistic and undermine his credibility. By continuing, in effect, to align with Algeria and the Polisario, he gives the impression of prolonging a political fight rather than illuminating the debate. The responsibility of former international mediators is thus in question. When a former UN representative speaks out so trenchantly in public, he indirectly engages the image of the institution he served. Yet the credibility of international diplomacy rests precisely on the neutrality of its intermediaries. The diplomatic history of the Sahara is dotted with mediation attempts, successive plans, and failed initiatives. Before Ross, other envoys had tried to unblock the situation, notably James Baker, who proposed a transition plan in the early 2000s that was ultimately rejected. Each attempt has recalled a fundamental truth: without regional political will, no framework can succeed. This is precisely why current international diplomacy favors a realistic solution based on autonomy and regional cooperation, rather than maximalist constructs inherited from the Cold War. In essence, the question is not whether Ross has the right to express an opinion. Like any former diplomat, he can, of course, participate in the debate. But when he persists in defending a vision that ignores major geopolitical shifts, his discourse takes on the appearance of a rearguard battle. The world has changed, as have regional balances. The Sahara under Moroccan sovereignty is no longer merely a decolonization issue: it now lies at the heart of a strategic reconfiguration of the Atlantic and North Africa. Faced with these transformations, international diplomacy seems to have chosen pragmatism. Christopher Ross, by contrast, appears to have chosen nostalgia for a bygone paradigm. In international affairs, history shows that those who cling to past paradigms almost always end up swimming against the current of present realities.