Showing posts sorted by relevance for query ALGIERS. Sort by date Show all posts
Showing posts sorted by relevance for query ALGIERS. Sort by date Show all posts

Thursday, January 02, 2020


DIARY

Panthers in Algiers







In​ 1951 I left the US for Europe. I was working as a translator and interpreter in the new postwar world of international organisations: UN agencies, trade-union bodies, student and youth associations. My plan was to visit France briefly, but I stayed nearly ten years. For anyone living in Paris, the Algerian war was inescapable. Where did your sympathies lie? Which side were you on? In 1960 at an international youth conference in Accra, I struck up a friendship with the two Algerian representatives: Frantz Fanon, a roving ambassador for the Provisional Government of the Algerian Republic, and Mohamed Sahnoun of the exiled Algerian student movement. After the conference, I flew to New York, where I met Abdelkader Chanderli, the head of the Algerian Office, as the unofficial Algerian mission at the UN was known. Chanderli invited me to join his team, lobbying UN member states to support Algerian independence.

In 1962, with independence declared, I went back to Algeria. Vacancies left by close to a million fleeing Europeans meant that jobs were on offer in every ministry and sector. Before long, I found myself working in President Ahmed Ben Bella’s press and information office, where I received foreign journalists, scheduled appointments and dished out information to the reporters from Europe and the US who were streaming in. I even learned to fake Ben Bella’s signature for his admirers.

I stayed on after the coup that brought Houari Boumediene to power in 1965. I had made a home in Algeria; I was happy with my life and my work in the national press. In 1969, events took an extraordinary turn. Late one night I received a call from Charles Chikerema, the representative of the Zimbabwe African People’s Union, one of many African liberation movements with an office in the city. He told me that the Black Panther Eldridge Cleaver was in town and needed help.

It was June. I remember it very clearly. I can see myself walking down a side street between the Casbah and the European sector of Algiers towards the Victoria, a small, third-rate hotel. I climbed four flights of stairs and knocked. The door opened and there was Cleaver, and beyond him, flat out on the bed, his wife, Kathleen, eight months pregnant. The sense of awe I felt that day never left me. The shortcomings of the Black Panther Party are clear enough in retrospect, but they took the battle to the streets, demanded justice and were prepared to bear arms to protect their community. Their slogans – ‘The sky’s the limit’, ‘Power to the People’ – resounded through black ghettoes across the US. They denounced American imperialism as the war in Vietnam gathered pace.

Cleaver had arrived secretly in Algiers using Cuban travel documents. After ambushing a police car in Oakland, he had jumped bail and headed for Havana, where he spent six months as a clandestine guest before he was ‘discovered’ by a journalist. The Cubans had put him on a plane to Algiers without informing the Algerians. Cleaver felt his life hung in the balance. He had been assured in Havana that everything had been cleared with the Algerian government, that he’d be received with open arms and allowed to resume the political activities denied him in Cuba. But his handlers at the Cuban embassy in Algiers were now telling him the Algerians weren’t willing to offer him asylum.

I’d never known the authorities to refuse asylum seekers, whatever their nationality. Since I was the only American the local officials knew, I was often called on to interpret and explain, and to take responsibility for Americans who arrived without realising that hardly anyone in Algeria spoke English. Later that day I talked to the official in charge of liberation movements, Commandant Slimane Hoffman, a tank specialist who had deserted from the French army to join the Armée de Libération Nationale (ALN) and was close to Boumediene. I explained that Cleaver wished to remain in the country and to hold an international press conference. Hoffman agreed straightaway, but insisted that Cleaver’s presence be announced by the Algerian Press Service. ‘You saved my life,’ Cleaver told me repeatedly; he was convinced the Cubans had set him up.

The press conference went ahead, in a hall packed with students, members of the local and international press, diplomats and representatives from the world’s liberation movements. Julia Hervé, the daughter of Richard Wright, came from Paris to interpret from English into French. I did the same, into English, for the Cleavers. ‘We are an integral part of Africa’s history,’ Cleaver said at the conference. ‘White America teaches us that our history begins on the plantations, that we have no other past. We have to take back our culture!’

From then on, we were a team. Cleaver was tall – he seemed to me towering – and sexy, with a perfectly developed sense of humour and expressive green eyes. He and I had a rapport, no sex but much sharing of confidences. When the Cleavers arrived, I was working at the Ministry of Information organising the first Pan-African Cultural Festival, which was to bring together musicians, dancers, actors and intellectuals from every country in Africa and the black diaspora, including members of the Panthers from the US. For more than a week, the streets of Algiers overflowed, performances filled the day and carried on into the small hours. Among the performers were Archie Shepp, Miriam Makeba, Oscar Peterson, and Nina Simone, whose first performance we had to cancel after Miriam Makeba and I found her dead drunk in her hotel room. The local stagehands were shocked: they had never seen a drunk woman. The Panther delegation stayed at the Aletti, the best hotel in downtown Algiers, and were provided with a storefront – they called it the Afro-American Centre – on rue Didouche Mourad, one of the city’s two main commercial thoroughfares, where they distributed party literature and screened films late into the night. Cleaver and his companions – most of them also refugees from US justice – were quickly integrated into the cosmopolitan community of liberation movements. The Panthers may not have noticed, or perhaps didn’t care, that Algeria itself was a conservative, closed society, that women were not really free, that a form of anti-black racism existed among the population, and that the Algerian establishment’s generosity required certain codes of conduct and reciprocity on the part of their guests. The Panthers ignored whatever they didn’t want to deal with. After the festival, the delegation returned to California, while the exiles got down to business. I received invitations for Cleaver to meet the ambassadors of North Vietnam, China and North Korea, as well as representatives of the Palestinian liberation movement and the National Liberation Front of South Vietnam (the Vietcong). I accompanied him on these visits: he was dignified and lucid, performing like a seasoned diplomat, despite his past as a school dropout, rapist and convict. He could also close down, and retreat to an inaccessible place.

Shortly after Cleaver’s arrival, the ambassador of North Korea invited him to Pyongyang to attend an ‘international conference of journalists against American imperialism’. Cleaver was the star of the conference and stayed on for more than a month. One morning, shortly after his return, he showed up at the Ministry of Information, where I was part of a small team working on a political magazine for international distribution. He was wearing shades and slumped down on a chair next to my desk. Then, without any preamble he lowered his voice: ‘I killed Rahim last night.’ I couldn’t believe what I was hearing. Rahim, aka Clinton Smith, had escaped from prison in California with a fellow inmate, Byron Booth, in January 1969. They had hijacked a plane to Cuba and joined up with Cleaver. Not long after sending Cleaver off to Algiers, the Cubans packed off Rahim and Booth too.

Cleaver told me that Rahim had stolen the Panthers’ money and was planning to ‘split’. He and Booth, who witnessed the murder, had buried the body on a wooded hillside a little way out of town, near the sea. Once he’d finished telling me this he put on the cap he’d been playing with and strolled out of the office. I couldn’t get Rahim’s face out of my mind. I was angry with Cleaver for imagining I needed to know any of this. Did he think I could help him if the Algerian authorities got wind of the murder and decided to take action? Several days later a French friend told me that he had seen Rahim and Kathleen Cleaver ‘smooching’ in a cabaret when Cleaver was in North Korea. My friend didn’t know that Rahim had ‘disappeared’. When I next saw Cleaver he told me that the hastily buried remains had been discovered, and added that it must have been obvious from the afro and the tattoos that the victim was an African-American. By then Booth had left the country. A French friend of the Panthers was summoned to police headquarters to identify the body but no one from the Algerian authorities ever got in touch with the Panthers or with me, though I was sure the killing had gone on record.

The Panthers financed themselves thanks to donations from supporters and Cleaver’s advances on book projects. His royalties from Soul on Ice, the defiant confession that had made him famous, were blocked by the US government. Over lunch one day in the spring of 1970, Cleaver pleaded with me to find a way for what the Panthers were now calling the ‘International Section of the BPP’ to be recognised as a sponsored liberation movement, allowing it access to a range of privileges, and a monthly stipend. I turned the problem over to M’hamed Yazid, who’d been the Algerian provisional government’s first representative in New York. He spoke fluent English and was married to Olive LaGuardia, niece of the former mayor of New York City.

M’hamed invited us to lunch at his house outside Algiers, built in the Ottoman period. We sat at a table in the garden, the Cleavers, Don Cox – the former military leader of the BPP, known as ‘DC’ or ‘the field marshal’ – and myself. M’hamed charmed us with stories of his life in New York, all the while sizing up his guests. The interview went well and soon afterwards he called to say the Panthers had been assigned a villa formerly occupied by the Vietcong delegation in the El Biar sector of the city. They would be provided with telephone and telex connections and Algerian ID cards; they wouldn’t need entry or exit visas; and they would receive a monthly cash allocation.

Why did the authorities decide to support the Panthers more openly? Perhaps they would serve as a bargaining chip in negotiations with Washington over Algeria’s oil and gas reserves. There were ideological reasons too. It was obvious to everyone living there that Algeria was not neutral in the struggle between the superpowers. Ties with the Soviet Union dated back to the liberation war and the Eastern bloc’s generosity in providing weapons, training and education.

Cleaver was on top of the world after receiving formal recognition. In May, he shipped his pregnant wife off to give birth in North Korea. The wonders of the Korean health system, it was thought, were unsurpassed, and the decision would strengthen the BPP’s ties with Pyongyang. Meanwhile Cleaver had met a gorgeous young Algerian called Malika Ziri who was constantly at his side. Attaching herself publicly to a black American at least 15 years older than her in a society where discretion was the rule would have required immense self-confidence. The Panthers were stars in Algiers, but their flamboyance was also looked on critically. They helped themselves to scarce resources – basic entitlements in American eyes – that other liberation movements didn’t have access to: houses, cars, media coverage, visiting celebrities. They openly dated attractive women, both Algerian and foreign. I can still picture Sekou Odinga, an exile from the New York branch of the Panthers, swooping along the rue Didouche in a shiny red convertible with the top down, a lovely auburn-haired American at the wheel.

The official opening of the headquarters of the International Section took place on 13 September 1970. ‘This is the first time in the struggle of the black people in America that they have established representation abroad,’ Cleaver told the crowd at the ‘embassy’. A few weeks later Sanche de Gramont, a French-American journalist, published a cover story in the New York Times Magazine entitled ‘Our Other Man in Algiers’.

Soon after the opening of the embassy Timothy Leary, the high priest of LSD (‘turn on, tune in, drop out’), and his wife arrived in town. Leary had been sprung from a US prison by the Weather Underground, who’d been paid $25,000 (some say $50,000) by the Brotherhood of Eternal Love, a California hippy group that manufactured and distributed high-grade marijuana and LSD. Nixon had called Leary ‘the most dangerous man in America’. Cleaver and I gave Slimane Hoffman a toned-down version of Leary’s story, emphasising his career as a Harvard professor. Cleaver assured Hoffman that he was capable of controlling Leary’s drug use and his bouts of nonsensical eloquence. The commandant wished us well.

My first impression was that the Learys were elderly hipsters. I don’t know what I expected: something crazier, more flamboyant and exciting. In the name of the revolution Cleaver decided that Leary had to denounce drugs, and Leary agreed to take part in a BPP film session aimed at US audiences. Cleaver opened the interview by saying that the idea that drugs were a way to liberation was an invention by ‘illusionary guys’: the real path was through organisations like the Weathermen and the BPP who were involved in direct action. Leary’s reply was cagey. ‘If taking any drug postpones for ten minutes the revolution, the liberation of our sisters and brothers, our comrades, then taking drugs must be postponed for ten minutes ... However, if one hundred FBI agents agreed to take LSD, thirty would certainly drop out.’

The Panthers decided Leary should join a delegation invited to the Levant by Fatah, Yasser Arafat’s party, then the dominant force in the PLO. Leary should break cover there, it was argued, not in Algeria. The group, headed by Don Cox, landed in Cairo in October without incident, then went on to Beirut, where they were put up in a hotel frequented by the Western press. Leary was spotted and the hotel was besieged. The delegation was followed everywhere and it became impossible for them to visit Fatah’s training camps in Jordan and Syria as planned. They returned instead to Cairo, where Leary, paranoid and hysterical, became ‘uncontrollable’, DC reported, scaling walls, hiding behind buildings, raising his arms and screaming in the streets. The Algerian ambassador put them on a plane back to Algiers.

From there, they hired a car and began spending time in Bou-Saada, an oasis in the Sahara where, at their ease on handloom carpets, they partied with LSD. Algeria is an immense country, four-fifths desert, but one is never quite alone. The Learys would smile blissfully and wave to the astonished shepherds who came across them. The Panthers didn’t approve of these escapades and in January 1971 ‘arrested’ the Learys, putting them under guard for several days. Cleaver filmed the prisoners and issued a press release that was distributed in the US: ‘Something’s wrong with Leary’s brain ... We want people to gather their wits, sober up and get down to the serious business of destroying the Babylonian empire ... To all those of you who looked to Dr Leary for inspiration and leadership, we want to say to you that your god is dead because his mind has been blown by acid.’

When he was freed, Leary complained to the Algerian authorities and we were summoned by Hoffman. The atmosphere was heavy until Cleaver and DC produced bags of drugs recovered from Leary and his visitors – enough for 20,000 hits. Hoffman’s jaw dropped. Tim was tired of us and wanted to move on. He no longer hid his dislike of DC and me; we felt the same way about him. Early in 1971, he left without saying goodbye.

There​ must have been thirty Panthers, men, women and children, in the International Section. They operated in military style with strict regulations, daily worksheets and activity reports. They maintained contact with support groups in Europe and other liberation organisations in Algiers. They ran training sessions in self-defence and weapons instruction. Just before the embassy opened Huey Newton, the legendary BPP leader who had spent almost three years in prison on a manslaughter charge for killing a policeman, was granted parole, awaiting a new trial. When he was released from jail ten thousand people turned out to greet him. But the man who took back the leadership of the BPP was not prepared for the transformation that had taken place in his absence. The party had become a powerhouse that the FBI was bent on destroying, waging war against its members, attacking chapter headquarters, letting loose an army of paid informers and circulating fake information. Newton’s reaction was to demand total control, dismissing groups and condemning individuals who failed to fall in line.

With the attempt at containment came self-aggrandisement. He was living in a penthouse, had taken over a nightclub and was walking with a swagger stick. At the start of 1971 he was due to appear on a morning TV show in San Francisco and asked Cleaver to join him to demonstrate their alliance and dissipate the rising tension. The International Section met and decided unanimously to use the occasion to confront Newton. When Cleaver appeared onscreen he demanded that Newton overturn his expulsion edicts and called for the removal of Newton’s lieutenant David Hilliard. Newton cut short the broadcast, then called Cleaver. ‘You’re a punk,’ he said and expelled him from the BPP. Chapters and members across the US took sides.

Cleaver had taped the broadcast and the phone call. He asked me to come and listen to the recording, worried about the Algerian reaction. I didn’t think they would get involved: ‘It’s not their problem, it’s yours, Eldridge.’ The Panthers took down the BPP plaque at the entrance to their embassy and started to call themselves the Revolutionary People’s Communications Network. They hoped to enable information exchange between left-wing groups around the world and to produce a newspaper for distribution in the US and Europe. To take the measure of the damage caused by the Newton/Cleaver split, and launch the network, Kathleen and I headed for the US in October 1971 on a month-long cross-country speaking tour. We soon realised that the party was collapsing.

The group in Algiers plodded on. There was no reaction from the Algerians, no sign that they were following events in the BPP, though Newton had sent a formal message to Boumediene denouncing Cleaver. Then, on 3 June 1972, I received a call from the head of the FLN telling me that a plane had been hijacked in Los Angeles and was heading for Algiers. The hijackers had demanded that Cleaver meet them at the airport. They were holding $500,000 in ransom money, which they’d obtained in exchange for letting the passengers go. We stood on the tarmac, Cleaver, DC, Pete O’Neal (the former head of the Kansas City Panthers) and myself, and watched Roger Holder, a young African-American, and his white companion, Cathy Kerkow, slowly come down the steps from the aircraft. All were in high spirits until we realised that the Algerians had taken the moneybags and were not about to put them into Cleaver’s eager hands. The money was returned to the US; Roger and Cathy were granted asylum and became part of the local community of US exiles.

On 1 August another hijacked plane arrived, this one from Detroit. The hijackers, black but again not Panthers, had been paid $1 million by Delta Airlines for releasing the plane’s passengers in Miami. This time the authorities in Algiers kept the Panthers at a distance, and once again sent the money back to the US. The Panthers were furious: they were ‘vibrating to the overtones of dollar bills’, Cleaver would later admit. They wrote an open letter to Boumediene: ‘Those who deprive us of this finance are depriving us of our freedom.’ DC told his comrades they were crazy and resigned from the organisation: ‘The government is not going to risk the future of their country for a handful of niggas and a million dollars. There’s gonna be trouble.’ He was right. Reproaching Algeria’s head of state in public showed a lack of respect. The police invaded the embassy, confiscated the Panthers’ weapons, cut the telephone and telex connections, and closed it down for 48 hours. When the guard was lifted, Cleaver was called in by a senior official and severely reprimanded. The atmosphere cleared within a few days: Algeria wasn’t ready to abandon them.

Cleaver and his colleagues knew little of the country that had taken them in. They never ventured beyond Algiers. They didn’t read the local press or listen to the radio. Except for women friends, they knew few Algerians and never visited Algerian homes. They knew little of Algeria’s colonial past, the ravages of the war, or the under-development the regime was attempting to tackle. They saw themselves as free agents, able to protest and use the media at will. Some of them even proposed organising a demonstration in front of Boumediene’s offices. Cleaver had to remind them that this was Algiers, not Harlem. They had no real understanding of their hosts, their politics or their reservations about their American guests, and they underestimated them.

The Algerians, for their part, weren’t sure how to deal with the Panthers. Algeria was a leading light in the Third World, active in the non-aligned group of nations. It was hosting and training liberation movements from Latin America, Africa and Asia. There was too much at stake for the FLN to let itself be pushed around by these American exiles. And it couldn’t allow international hijackers to make Algeria look like a nation that didn’t abide by international rules.

With a dying organisation in the US and international support fast slipping away, the Algiers Panthers were close to stateless. ‘The International Section,’ Cleaver later wrote, ‘had become a sinking ship.’ He left the embassy. Malika had been replaced by a series of Algerian women. One of them, to my astonishment, was a veiled neighbour of mine who never left our building unaccompanied. He had wooed her as she hung out the laundry on her balcony and had been meeting her in my apartment while Kathleen was in Europe, seeking asylum for the whole family.

‘To each his own’ was a formula Cleaver used on many occasions. When he used it now, he was signalling his withdrawal from the organised left. The community of exiles began to look to their individual survival. They started leaving Algeria towards the end of 1972. Some settled in sub-Saharan Africa, a few attempted an underground existence inside the US; others, Cleaver included, left for France on forged passports: within a few years he would be back in the US, a born-again Christian. No one was ejected from Algeria. The group of Detroit hijackers left in mid-1973; Roger and Cathy were the last to go in January 1974. Cox, the field marshal, returned to Algiers that year and lived and worked there for another four years. The arrival of the Panthers in Algeria had been more than an education or an experience for me. I believed in them, I loved them and shared their goals. I hated to see them go.

I had made the arrangements for Cleaver’s departure: I found the passport he would travel on, the passeurs who would see him safely across national frontiers, the hideout in southern France, and the apartments in Paris. Before long, he was taken up by influential people there. His French residency and legal immunity were sorted out by the minister of finance, Valéry Giscard d’Estaing, shortly before he became president. Then I stopped hearing from him. To each his own, I reminded myself.



MORE BY THIS CONTRIBUTOR


1 MAY 2019


19 JULY 2017



Letters


Vol. 39 No. 15 · 27 July 2017


I lived in Algeria at roughly the same time as Elaine Mokhtefi, and I remember vividly the various exiles – Chileans and Palestinians in particular – hosted by the government (LRB, 1 June). I also remember the troupes sent by fraternal countries, such as North Korea, to stage events designed to promote cultural and ideological exchange. Almost invariably cultural difference won out over ideological sympathy. The North and South Americans tended to behave, as Mokhtefi reports, as if they were still back home; the Koreans, with shorter exposure, displayed incredulity towards their host society.

The reciprocal respect expected by the exiles’ Algerian hosts was often not shown. There seemed to be little understanding of the physical and mental devastation caused by colonisation and war, or of the magnitude of the tasks the regime faced. Expatriate teachers and oil workers mocked the Algerians. There was constant partying and open sexual promiscuity in what was a poor, conservative country. Another issue was the effect of exile on the exiles themselves; there can be a ‘creep’ in mindset. In Tunisia, after 1982, the PLO and its supporters were gradually drawn into patterns of consumption and individualism that destroyed their unity and lost them their hosts’ sympathy.

Mokhtefi’s article also illustrates the effects of a half-century of Western historiography. Who now would believe that the North Korea health service was ‘unsurpassed’, or credit the support the USSR gave to the Algerian independence movement, ‘in providing weapons, training and education’. Half a century later many young Tunisians, exposed to the Western media, tell me it was the US that freed Algeria.

Anne Murray
Tunis

Sunday, July 05, 2020

IMPERIALIST TROPHIES OF COLONIALISM
Algeria buries fighters whose skulls were in Paris museum


A soldier and members of the Algerian Republican Guard, guard the remains of 24 Algerians at the Moufdi-Zakaria culture palace in Algiers, Friday, July, 3, 2020. After decades in a French museum, the skulls of 24 Algerians decapitated for resisting French colonial forces were formally repatriated to Algeria in an elaborate ceremony led by the teary-eyed Algerian president. The return of the skulls was the result of years of efforts by Algerian historians, and comes amid a growing global reckoning with the legacy of colonialism. (AP Photo/Toufik Doudou)

MORE PICTURES
https://apnews.com/695349764cae2a309c6d4ca82cbdd35a

ALGIERS, Algeria (AP) — Algeria at last buried the remains of 24 fighters decapitated for resisting French colonial forces in the 19th century, in a ceremony Sunday rich with symbolism marking the country’s 58th anniversary of independence.

The fighters’ skulls were taken to Paris as war trophies and held in a museum for decades until their repatriation to Algeria on Friday, amid a growing global reckoning with the legacy of colonialism.

Algerian President Abdelmadjid Tebboune said he’s hoping for an apology from France for colonial-era wrongs.

“We have already received half-apologies. There must be another step,” he said in an interview broadcast Saturday with France-24 television. He welcomed the return of the skulls and expressed hope that French President Emmanuel Macron could improve relations and address historical disputes.

Tebboune presided over the interment of the remains Sunday in a military ceremony at El Alia cemetery east of Algiers, in a section for fallen independence fighters. Firefighters lay the coffins, draped with green, white and red Algerian flags, in the earth.

The 24 took part in an 1849 revolt after French colonial forces occupied Algeria in 1830. Algeria formally declared independence on July 5, 1962 after a brutal war.

Algeria’s veterans minister, Tayeb Zitouni, welcomed “the return of these heroes to the land of their ancestors, after a century and a half in post-mortem exile.”

Algerians from different regions lined up to pay respect to the fighters on Saturday, when their coffins were on public display at the Algiers Palace of Culture.

Mohamed Arezki Ferrad, history professor at the University of Algiers, said hundreds of other Algerian skulls remain in France and called for their return, as well as reparations for French nuclear tests carried out in the Algerian Sahara in the early 1960s.







In 1966, seven years after Algeria's National Liberation Front (FLN) successfully fought France for their country's independence, filmmaker Gillo Pontecorvo released the iconic The Battle of Algiers. Despite winning a Golden Lion at the Venice Film Festival and its widespread public influence, inspiring notable activists such as pro-Palestinians and the Black Panthers, the film was banned in France until the 1970s. Featuring interviews with revolutionary leaders such as Saadi Yacef, Algerian filmmaker Malek Bensmaïl looks back on the making of this landmark film half a century after its release. His doc presents us with an Algeria still gripped with pride for its independence, and one in which the annually broadcast The Battle of Algiers remains a staunch cultural phenomenon.

Thursday, November 13, 2025

GOOD NEWS

Algeria frees French-Algerian writer Boualem Sansal for transfer to Germany


Algeria has pardoned French-Algerian writer Boualem Sansal after a request from Germany, to where he will be transferred for medical treatment after a year in detention, it was announced Wednesday.


Issued on:  13/11/2025  RFI

French Algerian writer Boualem Sansal, now 80 but pictured here in 2015, was suffering from prostate cancer in an Algerian jail, according to his family, and will now be treated in Germany. © JOEL SAGET / AFP

After German President Frank-Walter Steinmeier on Monday urged Algeria to free the 81-year-old, "the president of the republic decided to respond positively", the Algerian presidency said.

The statement said Germany would take charge of the transfer and treatment of Sansal, who has prostate cancer, according to his family.

Sansal was given a five-year jail term in March, accused of undermining Algeria's territorial integrity after he told a far-right French outlet last year that France had unjustly transferred Moroccan territory to Algeria during the 1830 to 1962 colonial period.

France 'concerned' over disappearance of writer Boualem Sansal in Algeria

Algeria views those ideas - which align with longstanding Moroccan territorial claims - as a challenge to its sovereignty.

He was arrested in November 2014 at Algiers airport. Because he did not appeal March's ruling, he was eligible for a presidential pardon.

Steinmeier urged Algeria to make a humanitarian gesture "given Sansal's advanced age and fragile health condition" and said Germany would take charge of his "relocation to Germany and subsequent medical care".
'Mercy and humanity'

French President Emmanuel Macron had also urged Tebboune to show "mercy and humanity" by releasing the author.

Sansal's daughter Sabeha Sansal, 51, told Ffrench news agency AFP by telephone from her home in the Czech Republic of her relief.

"I was a little pessimistic because he is sick, he is old, and he could have died there," she said. "I hope we will see each other soon."

A prize-winning figure in North African modern francophone literature, Sansal is known for his criticism of Algerian authorities as well as of Islamists.

He acquired French nationality in 2024.

Appearing in court without legal counsel on June 24, Sansal had said the case against him "makes no sense" as "the Algerian constitution guarantees freedom of expression and conscience".

When questioned about his writings, Sansal asked: "Are we holding a trial over literature? Where are we headed?"

French-Algerian writer Boualem Sansal sentenced to five years in prison

His case has become a cause celebre in France, but his past support for Israel and his 2014 visit there have made him largely unpopular in Algeria.

The case has also become entangled in the diplomatic crisis between Paris and Algiers, which has led to the expulsion of officials on both sides, the recall of ambassadors and restrictions on holders of diplomatic visas.

Another point of contention was the sentencing to seven years in prison of French sportswriter Christophe Gleizes in Algiers on accusations of attempting to interview a member of the Movement for the Self-Determination of Kabylie (MAK), designated a terrorist organisation by Algeria in 2021.

Both Sansal and Gleizes's prosecution came amid the latest rise in tensions between Paris and Algiers, triggered in July 2024 when Macron backed Moroccan sovereignty over the disputed Western Sahara, where Algeria backs the pro-independence Polisario Front.
Civil servant turned novelist

An economist by training, Sansal worked as a senior civil servant in his native Algeria, with his first novel appearing in 1999.

"The Barbarians' Oath" dealt with the rise of fundamentalist Islam in Algeria and was published in the midst of the country's civil war which left some 200,000 people dead according to official figures.

He was fired from his post in the industry ministry in 2003 for his opposition to the government but continued publishing.

Algeria court upholds writer Boualem Sansal's five-year jail term

His 2008 work "The German Mujahid" was censored in Algeria for drawing parallels between Islamism and Nazism.

He has received several international prizes for his work, including in France and Germany.

In recent years Germany has offered refuge to several high-profile prisoners from other countries.

The late Russian opposition leader Alexei Navalny was treated at Berlin's Charite hospital after being poisoned in August 2020.

Last year Germany welcomed several other high-profile Russian dissidents as part of a historic prisoner swap with Moscow.

(with newswires)


Algeria pardons French-Algerian writer Boualem Sansal


Algeria’s president on Wednesday granted a humanitarian pardon to French-Algerian novelist Boualem Sansal following a German request for his release. The 81-year-old writer, whose year-long imprisonment sparked widespread criticism, arrived in Berlin late Wednesday for medical treatment.



Issued on: 12/11/2025 - 
By: FRANCE 24
Video by: Morgan AYRE


French-Algerian writer Boualem Sansal was granted a humanitarian pardon, the Algerian presidential office said in a statement on Wednesday.

Sansal, 81, was arrested on November 16, 2024, in Algiers and sentenced on appeal in July 2025 to five years in prison for comments deemed harmful to national unity.

His pardon came after German President Frank-Walter Steinmeier urged Algeria to free Sansal. "The president of the republic decided to respond positively to the request of the esteemed president of the friendly Federal Republic of Germany", said the Algerian presidential statement.

READ MOREFrench-Algerian writer Boualem Sansal won't appeal sentence, hopes for pardon


Steinmeier thanked Algerian President Abdelmadjid Tebboune in a statement for the "humanitarian gesture" that "demonstrates the quality of the relations and trust between Germany and Algeria".

Hours after the pardon was announced, Sansal arrived in Berlin, according to the German presidential office.

French President Emmanuel Macron on Wednesday thanked his counterparts in Algiers and Berlin for Sansal's release on humanitarian grounds.

Macron, while visiting the southern city of Toulouse, said he had spoken by phone with Steinmeier "to express my deep gratitude for Germany's good offices", after Berlin requested and obtained Boualem Sansal's pardon.

"I acknowledge this gesture of humanity from President Tebboune and thank him for it," he said of the Algerian leader, adding that he remained "available to discuss with him all matters of interest to our two countries".

Prior to the pardon, Macron had called on Tebboune to show "mercy and humanity" by releasing the author.

READ MOREMacron urges 'mercy' for jailed writer Sansal in call with Algeria's Tebboune

Sansal is known for his criticism of Algerian authorities as well as of Islamists. He was arrested in November after saying, in an interview with a far-right French media outlet, that France unfairly ceded Moroccan territory to Algeria during the colonial era.

His statement, which echoed a long-standing Moroccan claim, was viewed by Algeria as an affront to its national sovereignty.

The author's arrest in Algiers deepened a diplomatic rift with France, which analysts have said is the worst the two countries have seen in years.

Sansal's pardon a 'relief' says French PM

© France 24
04:16




'I hope we will see each other soon'

Sansal's daughter Sabeha Sansal, 51, expressed her relief over the decision in a phone call from her home in the Czech Republic.

"I was a little pessimistic because he is sick, he is old, and he could have died there," she said. "I hope we will see each other soon."

A prize-winning figure in North African modern francophone literature, Sansal acquired French nationality in 2024.

Appearing in court without legal counsel on June 24, Sansal had said the case against him "makes no sense" as "the Algerian constitution guarantees freedom of expression and conscience".

When questioned about his writings, Sansal asked: "Are we holding a trial over literature? Where are we headed?"

His case has become a cause celebre in France, but his past support for Israel and his 2014 visit there have made him largely unpopular in Algeria.

The case has also become entangled in the diplomatic crisis between Paris and Algiers, which has led to the expulsion of officials on both sides, the recall of ambassadors and restrictions on holders of diplomatic visas.

READ MORE'Insult to injury': What’s behind the rising tensions between France and Algeria?

Another point of contention was the sentencing to seven years in prison of French sportswriter Christophe Gleizes in Algiers on accusations of attempting to interview a member of the Movement for the Self-Determination of Kabylie (MAK), designated a terrorist organisation by Algeria in 2021.

Both Sansal and Gleizes's prosecution came amid the latest rise in tensions between Paris and Algiers, triggered in July 2024 when Macron backed Moroccan sovereignty over the disputed Western Sahara, where Algeria backs the pro-independence Polisario Front.
Civil servant turned novelist

An economist by training, Sansal worked as a senior civil servant in his native Algeria, with his first novel appearing in 1999.

"The Barbarians' Oath" dealt with the rise of fundamentalist Islam in Algeria and was published in the midst of the country's civil war which left some 200,000 people dead according to official figures.

He was fired from his post in the industry ministry in 2003 for his opposition to the government but continued publishing.

His 2008 work "The German Mujahid" was censored in Algeria for drawing parallels between Islamism and Nazism.

He has received several international prizes for his work, including in France and Germany.

In recent years Germany has offered refuge to several high-profile prisoners from other countries.

The late Russian opposition leader Alexei Navalny was treated at Berlin's Charite hospital after being poisoned in August 2020.

Last year Germany welcomed several other high-profile Russian dissidents as part of a historic prisoner swap with Moscow.

(FRANCE 24 with AFP)

Tuesday, April 14, 2026

Pope visits Algeria, with calls for a 'dynamic, free' civil society

Pope Leo XIV on Tuesday began the second of a two-day visit to Algeria, the first leg of his landmark African tour. He called it an opportunity to "promote peace". Several rights groups are calling on the leader of the Catholic Church to raise the issues of human rights and religious freedom with the authorities.

Issued on: 14/04/2026 - RFI

Pope Leo XIV visits the Great Mosque of Algiers "Djamaa El Djazair" with the Rector of the Great Mosque of Algiers, Mohammed Al-Mamoun Al-Qasimi Al-Hassani, on 13 April , 2026. AFP - ALBERTO PIZZOLI

The pope called his trip to Algeria "a very precious opportunity" to promote "peace and reconciliation with respect and consideration for all peoples".

The US-born pope began his visit with a call for forgiveness in a speech paying tribute to victims of the country's war of independence from France (1954-1962).

"In this place, let us remember that God desires peace for every nation," he said at the Algerian Martyr's Memorial in the capital. "This peace, which allows us to face the future with a reconciled spirit, is possible only through forgiveness."

The remarks, his first since arriving in the North African nation, come at a time of heightened tensions between Algeria and France, and follow his meeting days ago with French President Emmanuel Macron in the Vatican.

Algeria is home of Saint Augustine (354-430), an influential Christian theologian, who laid the foundations for the 13th-century Augustinian order to which Leo belongs, one based on communal living and service.

Pope Leo sets off on African tour focused on peace and unity

In Algiers, the atmosphere of celebration pervaded the air, with walls repainted, roads repaved and green spaces adorned with plants and flowerpots.

On his first stop, the pope met with President Abdelmadjid Tebboune and was also set to address diplomats.

Monday's itinerary also included a visit to the Great Mosque of Algiers, home to the world's highest minaret, and the Basilica of Notre-Dame d'Afrique, overlooking the Bay of Algiers.

On Tuesday, Leo will visit the northeastern city of Annaba, formerly the ancient Roman city of Hippo, the one-time home of the saint whose autobiographical Confessions is a seminal work within the Christian tradition.

Leo also plans to pray privately in the chapel dedicated to 19 priests and nuns murdered during Algeria's 1992-2002 civil war.

The pope will not, however, visit the Tibhirine monastery, whose monks were kidnapped and murdered in 1996 in an event still shrouded in mystery.
Calls on Algeria to promote 'dynamic, free' civil society

Pope Leo XIV urged authorities in Algeria on Monday "not to fear" greater public participation in political life, calling for a "vibrant, dynamic and free civil society".

Although Algeria's constitution guarantees freedom of worship, subject to conditions, human rights groups say the repression of religious minorities is continuing.

Since the pro-democracy Hirak protests in 2019, which called for sweeping reforms and greater transparency, human rights groups have reported shrinking freedoms and greater controls over public space.

"The true strength of a nation lies in the cooperation of everyone in pursuing the common good," the pope said during the first day of his visit to the Muslim-majority country.

"Authorities are called not to dominate, but to serve the people and foster their development. Political action thus finds its guiding criterion in justice, without which there can be no authentic peace," he added.

Algeria continues to face questions over murder of French monks, 30 years on

Three human rights groups had called on Leo last week to push the issue during his visit. Human Rights Watch alongside EuroMed Rights and MENA Rights Group urged Leo to raise the issues of human rights and religious freedom with the authorities.

In a joint letter addressed to the pope, they were "writing to bring your attention to key pressing human rights concerns in the country".

"We call on you to use your good offices to raise these concerns with the Algerian authorities in private as well as in your public communications surrounding the visit and call on them to uphold their obligations under international human rights law," the letter said.
Foreign policy

The pope has also criticised as "unacceptable" Donald Trump's threats against civilians in Iran, although he did not name the US president, and he has also previously criticised the administration's "inhuman" treatment of migrants.

Trump called the pontiff "WEAK on Crime, and terrible for Foreign Policy", suggesting that cardinals only elected Leo pope in May 2025 because he was American, and a potential bridge to Washington.

Leo responded with: "We're not politicians, we're not looking to make foreign policy as he calls it with the same perspective that he might understand it."

The papal visit to Africa will continue in Cameroon on Wednesday, followed by Angola and Equatorial Guinea, and will cover more than 18,000 kilometres between 13 and 23 April.

(with AFP)

Algeria hit by two suicide attacks during Pope Leo XIV's visit, sources say

FILE: Algerians gather in downtown Algiers to see Pope Leo XIV, on the first day of an 11-day apostolic journey to Africa during a visit to Algeria, 13 April 2026
Copyright AP Photo

By Gavin Blackburn
Published on 

No link has yet been established between the attacks and the pope's visit to the country, which was conducted under tight security.

Twin attacks rocked a city outside Algeria's capital on Monday as Pope Leo XIV started a historic visit to the country, a source with knowledge of the case said and video images verified by the AFP news agency showed.

"There were two security incidents yesterday afternoon in Blida, incidents of a terrorist nature. Two suicide bombers blew themselves up and were killed," the source told AFP on Tuesday, referring to the city some 45 kilometres southwest of Algiers.

Video images verified by AFP showed two bodies in the street in Blida.

The videos were released a few hours after the pope's arrival in Algiers. It was not clear when they were filmed.

The American pontiff on Monday became the first pope ever to visit Algeria, the first stop on a tour of four African nations.

No link has yet been established between the attacks and the pope's visit to the country, which was conducted under tight security.

Pope Leo XIV visits the nursing home of the Little Sisters of the Poor in Annaba, 14 April, 2026
Pope Leo XIV visits the nursing home of the Little Sisters of the Poor in Annaba, 14 April, 2026 AP Photo

Algeria's army regularly announces the arrests or deaths of "terrorists," the authorities' term for armed Islamists who are still active since the North African country's 1992-2002 civil war.

But attacks and bombings by militants are rare.

The most recent recorded suicide attack in Algeria was in February 2020. It targeted a military base and killed a soldier in the south of the country near the Malian border, and was claimed by the so-called Islamic State (IS) group.

The African Union on Tuesday condemned what it had said was an attempted double attack before retracting its comments.

AU spokesman Nuur Mohamud Sheekh said this was because the information on which the statement was based had "not been corroborated by official sources."

Algerian authorities have not confirmed the attack or commented on the African Union's statement, which was later removed from the regional body's official webpage and social media accounts.

In the original AU statement, the chairperson of the African Union Commission, Mahmoud Ali Youssouf, had said he "condemns in the strongest possible terms the double attack that occurred on April 13, 2026, in Blida."

"He extends his sincere condolences to the families of the victims, expresses his deepest sympathy, and wishes a speedy recovery to the injured," the statement said, before it was deleted.

In March, the army said it had killed seven jihadists and lost three soldiers in an operation in the east of the country near the Tunisian border.

Sunday, July 19, 2026

We Have Been There Before: The US-Iran MOU and the Algiers Accords



 July 17, 2026
Facebook

“The United States pledges that it is and from now on will be the policy of the United States not to intervene, directly or indirectly, politically or militarily, in Iran’s internal affairs.”

“Iran and the United States … will immediately select a mutually agreeable central bank … to act … as depositary of the escrow and security funds.”

“Commencing upon completion of the requisite escrow arrangements with the Central Bank, the United States will bring about the transfer to the Central Bank of all gold bullion which is owned by Iran.”

“Commencing with the adherence by Iran and the United States to this declaration… the United States will arrange… for the transfer to Iran of all Iranian properties which are located in the United States and abroad.”

“If any dispute arises between the parties as to whether the United States has fulfilled any obligation …  Iran may submit the dispute to binding arbitration by the tribunal established by, and in accordance with the provisions of, the claims settlement agreement.”

If you think the above declarations are related to the Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) signed between Iran and the US on June 17, 2026, think again. These are some of the provisions of the Algiers Accords, an agreement that the Carter administration signed with Iran on January 19, 1981, promising many things to Iran in exchange for the Islamic Republic releasing American embassy personnel (or “hostages,” as the US government referred to them) held in Iran. As I have explained elsewhere, even though Iran released the detainees, the US never kept its part of the bargain. Just think of the first article above, i.e., that the US will not intervene, directly or indirectly, politically or militarily, in Iran’s internal affairs again. Now, think of thousands of sanctions that the US has levied on Iran or Iranians in the past 45 years, all the assassinations that the US has, directly or indirectly, carried out in Iran, and military interventions in the past year alone.

The Algiers Accords were signed at a time when Iran had the upper hand in dealing with the US. After many attempts at diplomacy failed to release the US personnel, the Carter administration launched “Operation Eagle Claw,” a covert military operation on April 24, 1980, aimed at rescuing its personnel in Tehran. The operation turned into a fiasco when severe weather in the Iranian desert city of Tabas and mechanical failures caused Jimmy Carter to abort the operation. Eight US service representatives died, one transport plane and one helicopter were destroyed in a collision, and five additional helicopters were either abandoned or captured by Iranian forces. Then, after 444 days of Iran not blinking and holding the Americans, a frustrated and desperate US president signed the Algiers Accords, having, of course, no intention of abiding by them.

Similar to the Algiers Accords, the June 17, 2026, MOU came out of the desperation of a US president, albeit a criminally insane president. Following the advice of Benjamin Netanyahu, the Israeli butcher of Gaza, Operation “Epic Fury” was launched on February 28, 2026, to overthrow the Islamic Republic and replace it with a regime friendly to the US and Israel—a regime preferably headed by the son of the former shah of Iran, if the Israelis had their way. According to the madman in the White House, the operation was supposed to last 4–5 weeks, yet it lasted for 110 days; and as this essay is being written, it is back on.

Like “Operation Eagle Claw,” the 2026 campaign ran into difficulties from the start. On the first day, the US blew up an elementary school in Minab, Iran, killing an estimated 168 children (the US is still “investigating” the case!). This was a double-tap strike, meaning survivors, or others, who tried to shelter or help after the first attack were struck by a second missile. The mass killing of children was so horrendous and caused so much consternation around the world that even the most ardent supporters of the US could not defend it. Indeed, the European allies of the US-Israel tried to distance themselves from the dynamic duo.

On the same day as the attack on a school, over 40 Iranian leaders were murdered, including Iran’s supreme leader of the revolution, Ali Khamenei, and many members of his family. Then, for 37 more days, the US and Israel bombarded Iran with everything they had. Air defense systems, naval assets, command and control systems, missile and drone infrastructures, as well as hospitals and healthcare facilities, schools, universities and research centers, museums, historical sites, bridges, and oil and petrochemical facilities, all came under attack. At least 3,200 Iranians were killed and more than 20,000 were wounded in the assault.

Yet, Iran and its Islamic system of government survived. The 56-year-old Mojtaba Khamenei replaced his 86-year-old father, Ali Khamenei, and many murdered leaders of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) were replaced by others, mostly younger and more militant ones. Indeed, while the previous leadership of the Islamic Republic was cautious in reacting to US-Israeli aggressions, the new leadership showed no fear of countering these aggressions. For many years, the IRGC had threatened to turn any military adventure by the US-Israel into a regional battle, and, if necessary, close the Strait of Hormuz. But they had never acted upon these threats.

Now the gloves were off. Not only was Israel attacked with drones and missiles, but US assets in the Persian Gulf were targeted. This included US bases in the United Arab Emirates (UAE), Qatar, Kuwait, Bahrain, Saudi Arabia and Jordan. In addition, the IRGC closed the Strait of Hormuz early in March. The combination of relentless attacks on Israel and US assets in the Persian Gulf, as well as the closure of the Strait of Hormuz that allows the passage of nearly 25% of total global maritime oil, made the psychotic leader of the “free world” to fume. In his “Truth Social” posts, which are like the diary of a madman, he threatened Iran with “total destruction” day after day. If Iran failed to meet his deadline to reach a deal and reopen the Strait of Hormuz, he wrote on April 7, 2026, “a whole civilization will die tonight, never to be brought back again.” Some interpreted the threat to mean that he was referring to the use of nuclear bombs against Iran.

The threats often alternated with declarations of victory and boasting about how the US had destroyed Iran’s air defenses, navy, and air force. In actuality, of course, Iran never had much of an air defense system, air force, or navy to begin with. But it had plenty of missiles and drones, and these wreaked havoc in Israel and the sheikhdoms in the Persian Gulf. The relentless counterattack by the IRGC against US assets and Israel, as well as the closure of an artery that supplied a substantial amount of the world’s fossil fuel and related products, started to rattle the global capitalist economy. As the worldwide rate of GDP growth slowed down and prices started to rise, the prospect of stagflation scared not only Europeans but also Americans. Even the madman in the White House admitted later that continuing the war on Iran “could have caused an international depression” and that he could have become another President Herbert Hoover.

The fear of stagflation was combined with other fears. The US was rapidly depleting its stockpiles of missiles and anti-missiles. After seven weeks of war, it was estimated by the Center for Strategic and International Studies that the US military had expended at least 45% of its stockpile of precision strike missiles, at least 50% of its inventory of THAAD missiles, and nearly 50% of its stockpile of Patriot air defense interceptor missiles. Another fear was the rising cost of the war. The Pentagon initially estimated that the war in Iran had cost Americans $29 billion. But later, there was a supplemental defense funding request for $80 billion. Other estimates were much higher. Those that included indirect costs, such as increases in food and fuel prices, projected, as of mid-June, that the war had cost US consumers and taxpayers about $132 billion and was rising. In addition, the US’s Strategic Petroleum Reserve was falling to its lowest level since 1983. These fears caused the madman in the White House significant stress, particularly after the downing of a US F-15 by Iranian forces. He lashed out at Iran and, at the same time, declared that a deal with Iran was close or imminent at least 38 times. He could see the writing on the wall, given the unpopularity of his presidency and his war, he could easily lose the midterm election and face another impeachment.

Finally, on June 17, 2026, 109 days after starting the aggression, the madman in the White House signed, virtually and unceremoniously, a Memorandum of Understanding with Iran. Like the Algiers Accords, this was a vague and imprecise two-and-a-half-page document consisting of 14 articles (“paragraphs” in the official MOU). Without going deeply into the analysis of each article, let me just point out a few things about the vague and unworkable nature of this MOU, as well as its implications for the US.

The first article started with ambiguity. It declared “the immediate and permanent termination of military operations on all fronts, including in Lebanon.” But how did Lebanon become a “front” in the US and Israeli war against Iran? The article never mentions Israel or Hezbollah and the latter’s struggle against Israel for more than four decades. This omission leaves room for Israel to continue its aggression against Lebanon. And, indeed, Israel has not stopped its occupation of Southern Lebanon and the mass murder of Lebanese people. But the article shows desperation on the part of the US. A demand for a ceasefire in Lebanon had never appeared in any previous agreement between the US and Iran. If the US were negotiating from a position of strength, it would never have accepted the inclusion of such a ceasefire. Instead, it would have argued that Hezbollah is a US-designated terrorist organization and is irrelevant to any ceasefire between the US and Iran.

But it was the second article of the MOU that was highly reminiscent of the Algiers Accords: “The Islamic Republic of Iran and the United States of America undertake to respect each other’s sovereignty and territorial integrity and to refrain from interfering in each other’s internal affairs.” We know how that promise turned out 45 years ago! As this essay is being written, the US continues to bomb Iran daily, mostly coastal areas in the south. Actually, the promise not to interfere in Iran’s “internal affairs” is contradicted by other articles in the MOU, such as the third one that says: “The Islamic Republic of Iran and the United States of America commit to negotiating and achieving the final deal, in a maximum of 60 days, extendable with mutual consent.” If the US were to respect Iran’s “sovereignty and territorial integrity” and not interfere in its internal affairs, why should there be a “deal,” presumably a deal about Iran’s nuclear program, which is an element of Iran’s internal affairs?

The fourth article promised that the US would “undertake to remove its forces from the proximity of the Islamic Republic of Iran within 30 days after the final deal.” But what does the proximity of Iran mean? Does it mean that the US is going to abandon all its bases in the Persian Gulf in 30 days?

It is actually the fifth article that has so far been a major bone of contention and has led to continued warfare between Iran and the US: “The Islamic Republic of Iran will make arrangements using its best efforts for the safe passage of commercial vessels, with no charge for 60 days only.” This can easily be interpreted to mean that Iran will oversee the traffic in the Strait of Hormuz. This is indeed how the IRGC is interpreting it, and when the US tries to redirect ships away from Iran’s control, the IRGC reacts by shooting at them.

The sixth article was similar to returning Iran’s assets in the Algiers Accords: “The United States of America undertakes, with regional partners, to develop a definitive, mutually agreed plan with at least USD 300 billion.” This is a pie in the sky! Like the Algiers Accords and also the false promises made in the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action in 2015, it will not happen.

The seventh article promised the end of “all types of sanctions against the Islamic Republic of Iran, including the United Nations Security Council resolutions, IAEA Board of Governors resolutions, and all unilateral U.S. sanctions, both primary and secondary, according to a mutually agreed schedule as part of the final deal.” However, this is highly unrealistic. Even if the madman of the White House wanted to lift “all sanctions” against Iran, the US Congress would likely prevent it.

The eighth and ninth articles addressed limits to Iran’s nuclear program. These articles contradict the 2nd article, as Iran’s nuclear program—which, according to a US intelligence assessment, is not an active weapons program—is part of Iran’s sovereign right. However, what is interesting about these articles is the concessions made by the US. Contrary to the repeated US demands that all uranium enrichment in Iran must stop and that all highly enriched uranium must be turned over to the US, the 9th article states that “the Islamic Republic of Iran will maintain the current status quo of its nuclear program”! Furthermore, the 8th article states that the two parties “have agreed to resolve the disposition of stockpiled enriched material pursuant to a mechanism that will be mutually agreed upon…with the minimum methodology to be down-blending on-site.”

The tenth article says the US “Department of the Treasury will issue waivers for exporting Iranian crude oil, petroleum products, and derivatives.” That idea fell apart on July 7 when the US took back the waiver, blaming Iran for attacking three tankers.

The eleventh article was just another Algiers Accords pie-in-the-sky: “The United States of America undertakes to make fully available for use the frozen or restricted funds and assets of the Islamic Republic of Iran upon the implementation of this MoU.” The twelfth article was also a fantasy: the US and Iran “agree that an executive mechanism will be established to monitor the successful implementation of this MoU and the future compliance of the final deal.”

The last two articles were very short, referring to “negotiations regarding the final Deal” after the signing of the MOU and the endorsement of the “final Deal” by a “binding UNSC resolution.” This was similar to the Algiers Accords’ promise of “binding arbitration” for any dispute.

The 2026 MOU between the US and Iran, like the 1981 Algiers Accords, was doomed to fail. Indeed, the madman in the White House declared on July 8, 2026, that the MOU “is over.” He also said that Iranian negotiators are “scum” and that he does not “want to deal with them anymore.” The bombing resumed, sanctions and blockades were reimposed, and the world watched with indifference.

There is a famous saying that is fitting here: “Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.”

Sasan Fayazmanesh is Professor Emeritus of Economics at California State University, Fresno, and is the author of Containing Iran: Obama’s Policy of “Tough Diplomacy.” He can be reached at: sasan.fayazmanesh@gmail.com.