You are classifying power based on its aggregate power on paper. Using this classification, Germany is a great power. But does power comes with another important factor which is independence of action? the answer is clearly no.
The traditional classification that people in school taught people is that the hierarchy of global power is like this (from top to bottom) :
A. Superpower(s)
B. Great Powers
C. Middle Powers
D. Regional Powers
E. Small powers.
This is an outdated classification that conforms to the times before and right after the American unipolarity of the 90s.
The better way to understand where a country stand in the age of American dominance is basically classify a country/countries into 3 groupings.
A. The leader also called as the Hegemon
B. The challenger(s) to the Hegemon
C. Mere follower of the system imposed by the Hegemon.
This is important because measuring a country's power by aggregate quantifiable measurements is no longer enough to read its trajectory and identify its position. For example, like I said before, Germany is arguably Europe's greatest power at the moment, but does Germany's great power status made it independent in its foreign policy? The answer is no, because Germany is at best the client state of America that conforms and shapes its foreign and domestic policies dictated by Washington.
On the other hand, Iran, a country which has only 1/8th GDP of Germany is now one's worthy of being classified as a serious power because Tehran is actually the ones that is playing a great power, by confronting the Americans and the Arab Sunni axis using its proxy forces. Iran is what we call a Challenger, because it does not conform to the order that the Leader of this era (The United States) imposed all over the world, not only does Iran not conform, but they're actively and aggressively trying to compromise this order (via proxy wars and the export of the revolution worldwide). The Iranians could boast that Tehran now controls 3 Arab capitals (Sanaa, Baghdad and Damascus) can the 'great power' Germany said the same ?
So it's arguable that despite its relative poverty compared to Germany, Iran is actually THE player that has more say.
So we have to understand what is the role of a leader (Hegemon) and a Challenger, the last thing we need to understand is what I would like to call a follower, and this is what 90% of the world are classified into (yours and mine included). A follower doesn't have:
- any legitimate cause worthy of effort outside its pre-determined national borders
- it does not actively try to shape the world in its image
- most of the time are happy with what the Hegemon dictates them.
Now my critique to your post that says:
that such a step would allow Morocco to evolve itself into a regional power both militarily, and economically speaking
After the 2nd WW, Germany and Japan ceased to exist as a challenger, the Bundesrepublik and Tokyo accepted American hegemony and adopted the 'if you can't beat them join them' attitude and for quite some time yes, Germany and Japan rose up the rank into a prosperous country. Japan at some point even are forecasted to overtake the US GDP in the late 80s. But because they're just a mere follower, in the case of Japan, The US intervened and caused the crash of the Japanese economy that lasted to this day.
So wealth and power that you get by cooperation (with a stronger power) would ultimately be sabotaged by that very same power you patronize.
And this is what a follower will always end up with.
So at the end of the day my point ist:
- Countries are classified in the hierarchy of global power politics by what is their attitude on the Hegemon of their era
- Those 3 classifications are that of leaders, challengers and followers
- A Leader is the hegemon that is currently imposing its will on the global arena
- A Challenger is the country/ies that actively try to bring down the imposed system (the world order) and shape it to its image
- A Follower is the country who finds the order of the hegemon is suited enough for himself and there's no need to do anything other than cooperate
- A Challenger isn't necessarily a wealthy power and a follower isn't necessarily a poor country
- A Challenger will always be better than a follower in the grand scheme of things and will always talk to the follower from a position of strength.
- A Challenger will NEVER allow foreign bases of foreigners in their territory or even the territory of other countries they deem important.
