A quarter century after 9/11, global outlets reassess its legacy for security, war, and U.S. power
Narrative Snapshot
Across outlets, there is broad agreement on the human toll and the endurance of 9/11’s consequences. The Hindu foregrounds the nearly 3,000 people killed and the decades of war that followed, while the Japan Times stresses how a small, low-budget plot exposed vulnerabilities and forced a rethink of security, later noting wars whose death toll it puts at more than 900,000. Multiple pieces treat the 25-year mark as less commemoration than audit, asking what the attacks set in motion and what endures.
Where they diverge is in judging the wisdom and effects of the U.S. response. RT twice argues that the attacks accelerated the end of a decade of unchallenged American hegemony and “turned a terrorist attack into a generation of war,” citing failed states and empowered autocrats. Middle East Eye contributors frame the post-9/11 era as imperial defeat abroad, expanded surveillance at home, and, in one museum-focused essay, a U.S. memory culture that preserves domestic trauma while obscuring the political context and global victims of the “war on terror.” Telesur English emphasizes an expansion of U.S. imperial authority that redefined global governance and surveillance, and highlights Islamophobia and “endless war” as core legacies. Haaretz contends that the U.S. strategy of targeting regimes that harbor terrorists failed, yet says Israel is following it.
A contrasting throughline holds that the United States built a homeland security architecture that measurably reduced the risk of a mass-casualty repeat. Fox News highlights how the post-9/11 system made another attack on the scale of 9/11 far harder, even as threats “hide in plain sight,” and publishes Mike Pence’s praise for a generation that “defended America.” Al Jazeera English features former U.S. diplomat Zalmay Khalilzad’s misgivings about how the Afghanistan and Iraq wars were handled, and CGTN underscores the costs and limits of intervention given Taliban rule five years after the 2021 withdrawal. The Times of Israel, citing the Washington Post, reports that al-Qaeda is regrouping under a “permissive environment” in Taliban-run Afghanistan, underscoring persistent transnational threats. Telesur also reports Pope Leo XIV’s anniversary appeal for forgiveness, reconciliation, and diplomacy.
What Happened
On September 11, 2001, nineteen men linked to al-Qaeda hijacked four commercial planes; two struck the World Trade Center, one hit the Pentagon, and one crashed near Shanksville, Pennsylvania, killing nearly 3,000 people (Telesur English; The Hindu). The United States went to war in Afghanistan less than a month later, and invaded Iraq two years after that (RT). Washington recast its foreign and domestic posture under a Global War on Terror, building a large homeland security architecture across agencies like the newly created Department of Homeland Security and expanding counterterrorism in the FBI and Defense Intelligence Agency; Fox News notes that by one clear measure the system made a 9/11-scale attack far harder. The wars’ toll exceeded 900,000 deaths and cost trillions, and after the 2021 U.S. withdrawal the Taliban remain in power (Japan Times; CGTN). The Times of Israel reports al-Qaeda is regrouping in Afghanistan. On the 25th anniversary, Pope Leo XIV called for reconciliation and peace (Telesur English).
Why It Matters
Outlets frame the 25-year audit as a test of security doctrine, interventionism, and power. Telesur argues U.S. policies “permanently redefined” international security and surveillance frameworks, while the Japan Times and Fox News describe a profound security rethink and an architecture that has reduced the risk of a comparable attack. RT contends the post-9/11 response accelerated the end of U.S. hegemony; CGTN emphasizes the limits of military intervention and nation-building after the Afghanistan withdrawal. Haaretz calls regime-targeting a “resounding failure,” even as it says Israel is emulating the approach, suggesting spillover effects on regional strategy. The Times of Israel’s report that al-Qaeda is regrouping in Taliban-run Afghanistan highlights unresolved transnational threats that could pressure over-the-horizon counterterrorism models. Middle East Eye’s critiques of surveillance expansion and museum memory politics point to sustained domestic legitimacy debates. For decision-makers, the coverage crystallizes a dual mandate: sustain effective threat suppression while reassessing doctrines whose costs and strategic returns remain contested.
Diverging Narratives
One camp emphasizes deterrence and resilience: Fox News reports the United States has not suffered another 9/11-scale attack and details the counterterrorism capacity built across DHS, FBI, and the Pentagon, while Mike Pence situates 9/11 within a longer arc of attacks by “radical Islamic terrorism” and honors those who “defended America.” Another insists the response backfired. RT ties wars, failed states, and empowered autocrats to strategic overreach that hastened the erosion of U.S. primacy; Telesur characterizes an expanded imperial authority, securitized governance, and surging Islamophobia; Middle East Eye argues the attacks could have been treated as a criminal matter but instead yielded imperial defeat abroad and surveillance at home, and criticizes a national memory that sidelines global victims. Haaretz adds a policy-specific critique of “targeting regimes that harbor terrorists,” calling it a failure even as it says Israel follows it. CGTN’s focus on the Taliban’s continued rule and the cost of war underscores the limits of intervention. The Times of Israel’s account of al-Qaeda regrouping in Afghanistan points to a persisting threat environment that complicates claims of strategic closure, while Al Jazeera English highlights Khalilzad’s misgivings about how the wars were conducted rather than their necessity per se.
What Happens Next
Several decision points emerge. First, whether Israel operationalizes the U.S.-style approach of targeting regimes that harbor terrorists, despite Haaretz’s assessment of its failure; analysts can watch Israeli policy statements and operational choices for explicit adoption of this doctrine. Second, U.S. and partner approaches to Afghanistan after reports that al-Qaeda is regrouping under Taliban rule, as described by the Times of Israel; signals would include intelligence-led public warnings, adjustments to over-the-horizon counterterrorism posture, or diplomatic pressure on the Taliban. Third, how the U.S. calibrates its domestic counterterrorism architecture as threats “hide in plain sight,” per Fox News; indicators include resource prioritization and agency posture changes. Fourth, whether post-9/11 surveillance and governance frameworks described by Telesur face retrenchment or further entrenchment amid ongoing debates over intervention and nation-building highlighted by CGTN and the misgivings reported by Al Jazeera English. Calls for reconciliation, such as Pope Leo XIV’s appeal, indicate a parallel track of moral suasion that could shape elite rhetoric if not immediate policy.