In a remarkable and unprecedented escalation, Algerian state television launched a fierce attack on the United Arab Emirates, using sharp language that crossed the boundaries of diplomatic norms and media propriety. This assault was not merely a stance; it represented a coordinated campaign reflecting Algeria’s shift from an institution-based state to one governed by a mentality akin to that of gangs, managed by a group of generals who harness state tools to settle scores and incite discord.
In its broadcasts and reports, state media described the UAE as a “fabricated micro-state” and a “hybrid entity lacking roots and sovereignty,” accusing it of inciting and spreading poison while attempting to undermine the identity and history of the Algerian people. This rhetoric bore no political logic or diplomatic restraint; instead, it presented itself as a declaration of open hostility, adopting a language of betrayal and defamation, far removed from professionalism and decorum.
However, this escalation cannot be divorced from Algeria’s internal context. A backdrop of accumulated political failure, a wavering economy, and a society groaning under the weight of repression and curtailment have led a regime that has attempted to divert attention from its open crises by playing on the fears of external adversaries. Every time public pressure mounts, the regime conjures an imaginary foe, with the UAE being the target today.
The real power in Algeria does not reside in the Mirad Palace but within the barracks. A group of generals holds the threads of power, controlling the media and directing it to serve their narrow interests. They have not forgiven the UAE for its stability, extensive relations, and successes in establishing a modern Arab developmental model. It troubles them that there are those who earn the world’s respect without grandiose slogans and who build their state on institutions rather than military proclamations.
Beyond Algeria’s borders, the regime no longer enjoys much credibility. Its support for separatist movements, hosting armed groups, and meddling in the affairs of African nations—from Mali to Libya, Niger, and Burkina Faso—has placed it in the category of concerning states. It has shifted from a potential partner to a diplomatic and security burden, raising alarms wherever it moves.
Despite all this, the UAE has not taken any hostile action towards Algeria. There have been no attacks, no interventions, no threats. Yet, the official Algerian response came laden with incitement and hatred, raising questions about the regime’s intentions and who stands behind this escalation. Those who possess a cause do not resort to insults, and those who trust their people do not seek refuge in state media to justify their positions.
The rhetoric emanating from Algerian television did not express a political disagreement as much as it reflected an identity crisis within the ruling system. An ongoing crisis that drains state resources to produce a narrative of hatred instead of forging hope for a people yearning for change. If Algeria has chosen this path, the UAE is well aware of how to fortify itself and respond.
