Articles

Americans are known for being "direct," especially in the questions they ask their interlocutors, expecting an automatic, Manichaean answer: yes/no, black/white. Kash Patel, FBI director, during his Senate hearing, was relentlessly pressed by Senator Eric Swalwell with the same question: "Did you inform the Attorney General about the mention of Donald Trump's name in the Epstein file, yes or no?", a question to which Patel did not give the expected categorical answer. While the answer to this question is simple, as it concerns a fact, the one posed by Senator Lindsey Graham, in Washington, to the army's commander-in-chief, General Rodolphe Haykal, is, however, much more complex, as it concerns an opinion, or even a political stance.

Secretary of State Marco Rubio hit the nail on the head, without mincing words. Showing himself paradoxically not very 'diplomatic' on this occasion, he displayed magnificent frankness by summarizing in a few words, in a short laconic phrase, the basis of the Iranian crisis from the perspective of the strained relations between Washington and the Islamic Republic. 'The leadership in Iran is in no way a reflection of the Iranian population (…). I'm not sure we can reach a deal with these people'... These remarks echo those made in the same vein by former French Minister of Foreign Affairs and Defense Jean-Yves Le Drian, who is well acquainted with the centers of power in Tehran, having dealt with them. 'They are very good at trickery (…),' he emphasized in a televised interview. 'Their only concern is to buy time and (ensure) the longevity of the regime.'

A single question imposes itself on anyone attempting to unravel the mystery surrounding the assassination of Saif al-Islam, the most prominent of Muammar Gaddafi’s sons, a man of singular ideas and conduct, and the presumed heir of a ruler who governed Libya from 1969 to 2011. The question is simple yet decisive: who lifted the protection from Saif al-Islam, at a time when he was living in a house in Zintan under tight security provided by local forces? One thing is certain: Saif al-Islam was betrayed. A betrayal that enabled an armed group to enter the place where he resided, with the explicit aim of assassinating him.

Following the Allied victory in the Second World War, the United States emerged as a superpower, shaping the course of the Western world. Its vast industrial machine was instrumental in securing the military defeat of fascism. In the first part of this analysis, we examine how the US established its model – not only through military might, but also by creating a new global economic, financial, and institutional order. In a forthcoming second part, we will consider the risks now confronting America. Many economists and commentators argue that the United States has entered the early stages of a secular decline.

While diplomats debate Libya's political future in air-conditioned conference rooms, The persistent fragility of the country's expansive southern region poses significant risks not only to Libya itself, but also to neighboring states, most notably those within the African Sahel. The Fezzan region, spanning one-third of Libya's territory, has become a black hole of governance where state authority has collapsed, armed groups proliferate, and transnational crime networks operate with impunity. The numbers paint a devastating picture. In the Fezzan, 67% of households require humanitarian assistance—the highest rate in Libya. Nearly half resort to crisis-level survival strategies, selling productive assets or forgoing medical care. Youth unemployment reaches 52% in some areas, creating a generation with no stake in stability. Chronic electricity outages last up to 20 hours daily. Maternal mortality rates soar as 73% of health facilities operate only partially, forcing women to deliver at home or travel 150 kilometers for basic care.

It must be stated plainly, without equivocation: one of the recurring blind spots of Western democracies lies in their relationship to time. Democratic time—defined by alternation, electoral urgency, limited mandates, and the constant need to produce visible results within a short horizon—is indeed a rhythmic, segmented, fractured time… and therefore a fragile one. By nature, it is impatient, perpetually searching for exits, compromises, and provisional stabilizations. It clings to the belief, rooted in a teleological and almost gnostic conception of History, that history itself can be bent through goodwill, negotiation, and shared rationality. That it inevitably advances in the right direction.